What American cars do you like?

[Mdbgtft]

C6 Corvette and Viper SRT-10
Prefer the Z06 than the C6

[PsychoChimp22]

I dont see one thing wrong with wanting to die in a fleetwood rather than becoming a quad in a prius. If he wants to drive it and disregard some safty, nobody else has the need to care.

[PsychoChimp22]

Prefer the Z06 than the C6



C6 is a generation, a ZO6 is a modle within the generation. He prob ment the ZO6, if he didnt i think he would have put coupe or convert., but dont be silly. anybody would take the ZO6. :D

[Matra et Alpine]

A crumple zone is designed to have a variable rate of compression. It's NOT the same as seeing a dent in a huge chassis leg !!

A link in another thread on the SUVs had the American NHTSA web site. one lciek and a seach on "1960s" tunred up this quote. FROM the American National Highways Traffic Safety Administration. So what do THEY say abotu older versus modern cars and accidents ??

Since the mid-1960s thare have been significant advancements in vehicle safety. Passive safety features such as seat belts, air bags, crash zones and lighting have dramatically reduced accident rates, injury severity and the number of fatalities. For example, the fatality rate per hundred million vehicle miles traveled has fallen from 5.5 to 1.7 from the mid-1960s to 1994.

SO, the number 3 item listed on safety improvements is crash zones.

Thank you and end of debate. FACT :) Good night !!

[Fleet 500]

What is that, a joke? Your humour's as bad as your debating skills

Depends how you look at it, all cars will crumple and ive never disputed that. Im not the one arguing against public opinion here afterall. I do not believe that classic cars were designed to crumple in the interests of occupant safety though.
And you lack of humor readily shows.

It's okay to disagree with public opinion.

As for debating skills, I think I've proved what I intended to. That even though some people don't (or won't) believe it, chances of surviving accidents in a classic car (especially a large one) are very good. I even posted photographic evidence (incidents which were in no way freak or miraculous accidents). Some will never admit it.

[Fleet 500]

A crumple zone is designed to have a variable rate of compression. It's NOT the same as seeing a dent in a huge chassis leg !!

A link in another thread on the SUVs had the American NHTSA web site. one lciek and a seach on "1960s" tunred up this quote. FROM the American National Highways Traffic Safety Administration. So what do THEY say abotu older versus modern cars and accidents ??

Since the mid-1960s thare have been significant advancements in vehicle safety. Passive safety features such as seat belts, air bags, crash zones and lighting have dramatically reduced accident rates, injury severity and the number of fatalities. For example, the fatality rate per hundred million vehicle miles traveled has fallen from 5.5 to 1.7 from the mid-1960s to 1994.

SO, the number 3 item listed on safety improvements is crash zones.

Thank you and end of debate. FACT :) Good night !!
You are still fogetting the fact that many, many more people use selt belts now than in the 1960s. That's a major reason why the fatality rate was 5.5/hundred million miles. Increased car safety is not the only reason.
Another reason is that the national speed limit went from 65 mph to 55 mph. I realize that most people ignored the 55 mph limit, but they did slow down somewhat from their previous 75 or 80 mph to 65 or 70. That, again, made another difference.
I had no idea you had the power to end a debate! ;)

[Matra et Alpine]

As for debating skills, I think I've proved what I intended to. That even though some people don't (or won't) believe it, chances of surviving accidents in a classic car (especially a large one) are very good. I even posted photographic evidence (incidents which were in no way freak or miraculous accidents). Some will never admit it.
You've not, see in debating it's when an indepentent arbiter or the opposing view secedes that "proved as intended" happens.
Not jsut because YOU want or think it - same flaw in your discourse on classic car safety too :)

Anyway, you are now using different words.
So lets just go over what you are saying NOW..... "chances of surviving accidens in a classic car .. are very good".
THAT is true, and the chances of surviving in a modern car are BETTER.
THAT was what the origianl issue was about, you're confusing it by trying to make a relative statement now an absolute one.

We all agreed you had posted photographic evidence. So do UFO spotters. Does it PROVE anything ? Nope. Remember we said about needing a large enough sample to make the evidence acceptiable. You've ignored that basic principle of analysis and presentation in debate :)

So, we all agree you can survive accidents in a classic car ( because the corrolary is clearly nonsense ). I think you confuse the opposition of your held view that classic cars were better somehow meant that everyone else was saying you wouldnt' surviive at all. In fact that isn't what anyone said. It WAS explained HOW you can suffer death and injury at the hands of a non-deformable, rigid chassis classic. Nobody EVERY said all accidents meant death. You got yourself confused over that I think.

Can you review Coverntry's graphs and explain ? Can you read the NHTSA comment and explain ? Can you read EVERRY word posted hera and explain. Coz *I* don't see how you "proved what intended". Explain please :)

[Matra et Alpine]

You are still fogetting the fact that many, many more people use selt belts now than in the 1960s. That's a major reason why the fatality rate was 5.5/hundred million miles. Increased car safety is not the only reason.[QUOTE]
PLEASE go back and read wthat I pointed out that NHTSA warranted listing it as the THIRD ITEM. Why didnt' you bother reading and absorbing that fact ?
[QUOTE]Another reason is that the national speed limit went from 65 mph to 55 mph. I realize that most people ignored the 55 mph limit, but they did slow down somewhat from their previous 75 or 80 mph to 65 or 70. That, again, made another difference.
Watch out there are competing figures on safety that actually shows that slower speeds INCREASES the accident rate. The propsed reasoning is that at slower speeds with less driver 'input' then we become less aatentive. It's one of the reasons that in Britain we dont' make a motorway straight - weven if the terrain allows it !!
Besides, NHTSA didnt' consider it warranted listing in the main 4 items they chose to draw conclusions on. THEY are experts in statiscital analysis and inference. If you disagree with them, I suggest going to their web site and reading further or asking THEM for an explanation - after all it's your tax $$$ that's paying them :) We do it here for free - maybe you'll feel better hearing it from someone you've paid - just as companies will pay "consultants" lots of $$$ to come and tell them what they already know :)
I had no idea you had the power to end a debate! ;)
Well it was pretty clear this one had ended.
But seemingly you fel otherwise.
It's like watching a football team down 56 points in the 4th quarter at the 2 minute time-out trying to muster the belief they can win the SuperBowl :)

[Fleet 500]

You've not, see in debating it's when an indepentent arbiter or the opposing view secedes that "proved as intended" happens.
Not jsut because YOU want or think it - same flaw in your discourse on classic car safety too :)

Anyway, you are now using different words.
So lets just go over what you are saying NOW..... "chances of surviving accidens in a classic car .. are very good".
THAT is true, and the chances of surviving in a modern car are BETTER.
THAT was what the origianl issue was about, you're confusing it by trying to make a relative statement now an absolute one.

We all agreed you had posted photographic evidence. So do UFO spotters. Does it PROVE anything ? Nope. Remember we said about needing a large enough sample to make the evidence acceptiable. You've ignored that basic principle of analysis and presentation in debate :)

So, we all agree you can survive accidents in a classic car ( because the corrolary is clearly nonsense ). I think you confuse the opposition of your held view that classic cars were better somehow meant that everyone else was saying you wouldnt' surviive at all. In fact that isn't what anyone said. It WAS explained HOW you can suffer death and injury at the hands of a non-deformable, rigid chassis classic. Nobody EVERY said all accidents meant death. You got yourself confused over that I think.

I guess you (and some others) can't accept the fact that classic cars are safer than is generally believed. The photos support it.

Oh, so the photos don't prove anything? I really don't know how I can reply to something like that! All of the people survived, you call it "miraculous escapes" (which they weren't) and now you compare them to UFO photos!
Perhaps you should debate rationally.
(But at least you have a sense of humor.) :)

[Matra et Alpine]

I guess you (and some others) can't accept the fact that classic cars are safer than is generally believed. The photos support it.

Oh, so the photos don't prove anything? I really don't know how I can reply to something like that! All of the people survived, you call it "miraculous escapes" (which they weren't) and now you compare them to UFO photos!
Perhaps you should debate rationally.
I have, so far you've avoided all the facts which DISPROVE your premise.

Classic cars are not "safer" than modern cars, thems the statistics and the point taken by the US government, the British road safety groups and pretty much everyone who has done the analysis.

Having a few pics doesnt' prove anything - hence the comment about the UFOs ( hopefully NOW you realise why that was brought in to the debate ( I thought THAT was obvious - ah well :( )

All that those pics PROVE is that in THOSE accidents the car survived with minimal damage. Do you realise the millions of car accidents that happen every year ? Can you grasp that to conclude "safer" you'd have to show that in those millions of accidents in the 60s and 70s that MORE people survived then in todays cars ? You DO realise that COventry's graph shows the EXACT opposite ? ( Sounds like you can get a good job in GWB's Intelligence Services :) )

[Fleet 500]

I have, so far you've avoided all the facts which DISPROVE your premise.

Classic cars are not "safer" than modern cars, thems the statistics and the point taken by the US government, the British road safety groups and pretty much everyone who has done the analysis.

Having a few pics doesnt' prove anything - hence the comment about the UFOs ( hopefully NOW you realise why that was brought in to the debate ( I thought THAT was obvious - ah well :( )

All that those pics PROVE is that in THOSE accidents the car survived with minimal damage. Do you realise the millions of car accidents that happen every year ? Can you grasp that to conclude "safer" you'd have to show that in those millions of accidents in the 60s and 70s that MORE people survived then in todays cars ? You DO realise that COventry's graph shows the EXACT opposite ? ( Sounds like you can get a good job in GWB's Intelligence Services :) )
I don't recall saying that classic cars are safer than modern cars.

Oh course those pics proved what I wanted to... for instance, that head-on collision in the Chevy at 35+ mph proved that you can indeed survive such an accident. And... oh, what's the use. I've pointed it out many times and you just using the same words as "miraculous," or "5 pics don't prove anything," etc., etc.

If you are referring to WMD, you should have said Clinton's intelligence (because that's where GWB got most of the information from), and U.N. intelligence and British intelligence and Russian intelligence, and the CIA... all of them claimed Iraq had WMD. (So did John Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and others.)

[Matra et Alpine]

I don't recall saying that classic cars are safer than modern cars.
You are correct. At no time have you used the words "safer thn modern cars" but in all the discussion you constantly repeat you woudl rather be in a classic and you debate at length on the reasons you think it is safe and state some of the reasons as BETTER than modern - eg more steell, longer bonnet, bigger chassis legs, thicker doors.
Understand the "inference" you make.
However, what we have been debating is the EFFFECT of the modern designs and the beneifts it holds over the less knowledgable engineering in 60s and 70s cars.
Oh course those pics proved what I wanted to... for instance, that head-on collision in the Chevy at 35+ mph proved that you can indeed survive such an accident. And... oh, what's the use. I've pointed it out many times and you just using the same words as "miraculous," or "5 pics don't prove anything," etc., etc.
You SAID IT in your opening sentence there. "pics prived what YOU wanted" but they don't PROVE the statistical chances of survivability. Coventry;s chart gives you that because it has a large enough sampel to be significant.
PLEASE try to grasp the flight attendant and UFO examples to see the folly of a ahdnful of case :)
If you are referring to WMD, you should have said Clinton's intelligence (because that's where GWB got most of the information from), and U.N. intelligence and British intelligence and Russian intelligence, and the CIA... all of them claimed Iraq had WMD. (So did John Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and others.)
ah, a died in the wool Republica is detected :)
When a President takes office then HE is responsible for all acts HE takes. if he had READ the reports or had't ASKED for the answer he wanted then it coudl have been different. BTW the British Intelligence NEVER claimed that Iraq had WMDs - yo're confusing the words of OUR Prime Minister. 2 senior politcal members of the cabinet ( inner circle of British Government ) resigned over it and a world recognised expert on WMDs was hounded to suicide when he challenged it :( So ( not wanting to take this off topic :) ) don't use Blair's words as justification !!

[Fleet 500]

You are correct. At no time have you used the words "safer thn modern cars" but in all the discussion you constantly repeat you woudl rather be in a classic and you debate at length on the reasons you think it is safe and state some of the reasons as BETTER than modern - eg more steell, longer bonnet, bigger chassis legs, thicker doors.

ah, a died in the wool Republica is detected :)
When a President takes office then HE is responsible for all acts HE takes. if he had READ the reports or had't ASKED for the answer he wanted then it coudl have been different. BTW the British Intelligence NEVER claimed that Iraq had WMDs - yo're confusing the words of OUR Prime Minister. 2 senior politcal members of the cabinet ( inner circle of British Government ) resigned over it and a world recognised expert on WMDs was hounded to suicide when he challenged it :( So ( not wanting to take this off topic :) ) don't use Blair's words as justification !!

Yes, I would rather *drive* a classic. They have styling (and chrome) and proven reliability (if you chose the right classic, of course). I could afford an almost-new car but I don't like them, so at a slight sacrifice in safety, I choose to drive classic cars. (And with the cars I drive, it would take a lot for me to be injured in one).

Actually, a die-hard conservative who happens to be a Republican (and with the loony choices for recent Democrat pres. and vice pres. candidates, you can probably see why).

How can you blame a pres. who just went by info supplied to him?
News reports did say British intelligence also said Iraq had WMD. In fact, practically the whole world thought so. I still do- I think they're buried far underground or, more likey, moved out of the country into Syria.
If you want to place blame on a president, perhaps you should ask why the last U.S. president (whose initials are B.C.) refused to take Bin Laden into custody when offered by Sudan? Or who did nothing when Iraq broke 17 U.N resolutions in 12 years (aside from firing a few missiles into the desert).

[Matra et Alpine]

How can you blame a pres. who just went by info supplied to him?
Let's be Aussie for a while - where going ott-topic is OK :)
Do you really believe that ?
have you ever considered how close to the justification Nazi officers gave for their actions THAT statement is ? They only did what they were told to do.
Your comment also ignores the REQUEST GWB gave to guide them to FIND the justification :(
News reports did say British intelligence also said Iraq had WMD. In fact, practically the whole world thought so. I still do- I think they're buried far underground or, more likey, moved out of the country into Syria.
Just as in this discussion you confuse personal view and demosntrable proof.
jstu as someone "thought" doens't make it real or justification.
The American consitution carries forward the views of the 13C Magna Carta. In IT all men are delcared innocent until PROVEN guilty.
This shoudl be remembered in any consideration of right or wrong.
If you want to place blame on a president, perhaps you should ask why the last U.S. president (whose initials are B.C.) refused to take Bin Laden into custody when offered by Sudan? Or who did nothing when Iraq broke 17 U.N resolutions in 12 years (aside from firing a few missiles into the desert).
Perhaps because he had more respect for international law and the rights of ALL men. More than a preseident who considers the rights of "HIS people" above others. Shame GWB didnt' read the constitution he was elected to uphold :( Personally I see it as a typical religious fundamentalist, just as Bin Laden is acting in Allah's name, GWB self-justifies it as acting in God's name. Saddens me :(
Your bias and biogorty is self-evident Fleet in NOT naming Bush senior for failing to do anythin either. A little introspection on that might be worthy at this time :(
Anywa, back to car compairson and away from less safe classic cars and politics. Take THAT up in another thread if so desired.

[SlickHolden]

I think if i'm in a 60-80's car i will be killed at 100kph, Only cause the chanced are that old seat belt might snap or the seat might be rusted under and leap me out the flammin window:eek:
They have been doing test here for years on saftey, And with time new cars become more safer and safer, And the most unsafe cars are them big 4WD that people think will save them in a crash, But i guess who wouldnt feel safe in 2.5 tonne ?

[Matra et Alpine]

Of course some cars could kill you doing 30mph around the corners.
The only image I've got of the Corvair is a beauty, but this thing was lethal. Copied the rear suspension off a Hillman Imp and didn't think that making it 4 times bigger and heavier woudl make a diffrence :)
I keep this as I do think this is one lovely looker for it's time :)

[SlickHolden]

My mums 79 VB Commodore. I have herd from many people but only one counted a ex holden worker told me how the VB's Could split in half almost :eek: They have no support in the middle. And if you have ever seen one in a smash hit in the rear you will see how they buckle into the cente. Very weak in that part. Even some VN-VS-VT have been known to bend the back doors towing. It's something that is fixed now i guess which goes to show they newer they get the safer they are:D

[Fleet 500]

Let's be Aussie for a while - where going ott-topic is OK :)
Do you really believe that ?
have you ever considered how close to the justification Nazi officers gave for their actions THAT statement is ? They only did what they were told to do.
Your comment also ignores the REQUEST GWB gave to guide them to FIND the justification :(

Just as in this discussion you confuse personal view and demosntrable proof.
jstu as someone "thought" doens't make it real or justification.
The American consitution carries forward the views of the 13C Magna Carta. In IT all men are delcared innocent until PROVEN guilty.
This shoudl be remembered in any consideration of right or wrong.

Perhaps because he had more respect for international law and the rights of ALL men. More than a preseident who considers the rights of "HIS people" above others. Shame GWB didnt' read the constitution he was elected to uphold :( Personally I see it as a typical religious fundamentalist, just as Bin Laden is acting in Allah's name, GWB self-justifies it as acting in God's name. Saddens me :(
Your bias and biogorty is self-evident Fleet in NOT naming Bush senior for failing to do anythin either. A little introspection on that might be worthy at this time :(
A few points:

Pres. Bush was going by exactly the same info as the last U.S. president. See my post in the thread "2006 Presidential Limousine" for a list of many Democrats who insisted (even more so than Bush) that Iraq had WMD.

What men are you talking about (innocent until proven guilty). I certainly hope you don't mean Saddam!

Actually, international law was being followed. Saddam/Iraq agreed to sign the 1991 cease-fire agreement which ended military action against Iraq. Saddam/Iraq broke that agreement (and also the 17 U.N. resolutions) many times in the last 12 or 13 years (for instance, firing in the no-fire zone). Under the cease-fire agreement, it said if Iraq broke it, the U.S. (and any coalition nations) had the right by law to resume military action. It took until 2003 because the pres. before Bush was too limp-wristed to anything about it (and didn't want his approval/popularity ratings to go down). Under the advice of Colin Powell, Bush agreed to go through the U.N. regarding removing Saddam from power. It did not pass through the U.N. (because Germany, France and Russia would not vote "yes" because they were more interested in receiving oil from Iraq in exchange for military materials). Since it was obvious that the U.N. would not approve because of those countries refusing to vote yes, Bush (and the coalition nations) invaded, removed Saddam from power (forever eliminating him from torturing and killing his own people), eliminated both of Saddam's evil sons, captured or killed 45 of 55 most-wanted Iraqi terrorists and, just recently, allowed Iraqis to vote in their own election- something they haven't been able to do in over 30 years.
This is bad? You would prefer that Saddam was still in power, killing his own people and attempting to build (more) banned WMD?

I would rather see Iraq as a democrat-republic instead of a haven for terrorists which it once was. Now how am I biased and/or bigoted?!?

[Matra et Alpine]

A few points:

Pres. Bush was going by exactly the same info as the last U.S. president. See my post in the thread "2006 Presidential Limousine" for a list of many Democrats who insisted (even more so than Bush) that Iraq had WMD.
That's NOT what the reports said about the manipulation going on in the preparation of the dossiers. So who;s telling the truth ? The pre-investeigation Bussh'ies or the investigators who have since clearly pointed out that it was bad actions and bad info ? BUT we've debated THAT one before. Bush supportes won't see anything wrong said against him. So no point goign over old ground.
What men are you talking about (innocent until proven guilty). I certainly hope you don't mean Saddam!
The point abotu law - as made clear in hte French consitution and repated in the british - is that the law MSUT be blind. It must have NO political influence applied to it and it MUST not judge the person, only their acts.
So UNTIL PROVEN guilty in internationla court, there was NO legal right to go after Saddam. THAT however does not take away that there was a moral right. However, we're supposed to follow the law. They shoudl have followed "due process" - after all if one party doesnt' why shoudl anyone else ? And the biggest on the block should be the most pure. Bush should have watched more "Lone Ranger" and less "Rambo" when he was growing up :)
Actually, international law was being followed.
Only part of the way, sadly the last an most important part had NO legal right to act. FACT.
Under the cease-fire agreement, it said if Iraq broke it, the U.S. (and any coalition nations) had the right by law to resume military action.
NO. The UN resolution did NOT state that action COUDL be taken it threatened that action WOUDL be taken. Bush chose to NOT wait for the UN to agree that the would be a could :(
It did not pass through the U.N. (because Germany, France and Russia would not vote "yes" because they were more interested in receiving oil from Iraq in exchange for military materials).
What a biased, igorant red neck comment !!
Even Britain did NOT want action taken, sadly Blair wanted to be America's buddy in Eureop and went against our legel process and his cabinet !!
Probably NEVER reported in the US otherwise the American citizens may have realised that their "home of democracy" ( ie the UK ) had reservations.
France has a STRONG tradition of the law beign fair and equal. Germany are sticklers for obeying rules. Cant' say Russia's motives - but given their own MASSIVE oil and gas reserves, wy woudl they want ti ?
Sounds liek right wing propoganda.
Show the evidence on those please :)
Since it was obvious that the U.N. would not approve because of those countries refusing to vote yes,
oops, liek Bush you ignore that the UN wre pointing out that there was NO legal mandate to take actiona dn athat the case woudl have to be presented, debated and AGREED before action. Not good enough for GWb who needed to who America how "powerful he/they werew" :(
This is bad? You would prefer that Saddam was still in power, killing his own people and attempting to build (more) banned WMD?
Like all who try to justify it, the horror of him still in power is used.
There are many more "evil" people in power - arguably the American government has sanctioned as many deaths in the last 30 years as Saddam - just not all in the one place ( and some of the many deaths attributeed were in civil war so legally aren't murder !! )
Yes he needed controlled. So did Quadaffi. NOW a friend of the west without the need to rape his country and illegally capture him !!
See the difference betweeen doing the right thing and doing the LEGALLY correct thing. Sometimes we are prevented from doing the "right thing" - coz if we had, GWB would never BEEN President - or at least a re-election woudl have been called !!!
I would rather see Iraq as a democrat-republic instead of a haven for terrorists which it once was. Now how am I biased and/or bigoted?!?
Everyone does. That's a no-brainer !
BUT, how you go about it matters.
If we allow a nation to bully another then it's wrong.
If we feel we can JUSTIFY such illegal action and paint it as "freedom" then the author IS biased and bigotted.
Answer this, was it right what Colonel North did ? I usually find that seperates the men from the boys :) the biased from the objective !!

[Fleet 500]

That's NOT what the reports said about the manipulation going on in the preparation of the dossiers. So who;s telling the truth ? The pre-investeigation Bussh'ies or the investigators who have since clearly pointed out that it was bad actions and bad info ? BUT we've debated THAT one before. Bush supportes won't see anything wrong said against him. So no point goign over old ground.

The point abotu law - as made clear in hte French consitution and repated in the british - is that the law MSUT be blind. It must have NO political influence applied to it and it MUST not judge the person, only their acts.
So UNTIL PROVEN guilty in internationla court, there was NO legal right to go after Saddam. THAT however does not take away that there was a moral right. However, we're supposed to follow the law. They shoudl have followed "due process" - after all if one party doesnt' why shoudl anyone else ? And the biggest on the block should be the most pure. Bush should have watched more "Lone Ranger" and less "Rambo" when he was growing up :)

Only part of the way, sadly the last an most important part had NO legal right to act. FACT.

NO. The UN resolution did NOT state that action COUDL be taken it threatened that action WOUDL be taken. Bush chose to NOT wait for the UN to agree that the would be a could :(

What a biased, igorant red neck comment !!
Even Britain did NOT want action taken, sadly Blair wanted to be America's buddy in Eureop and went against our legel process and his cabinet !!
Probably NEVER reported in the US otherwise the American citizens may have realised that their "home of democracy" ( ie the UK ) had reservations.
France has a STRONG tradition of the law beign fair and equal. Germany are sticklers for obeying rules. Cant' say Russia's motives - but given their own MASSIVE oil and gas reserves, wy woudl they want ti ?
Sounds liek right wing propoganda.
Show the evidence on those please :)

oops, liek Bush you ignore that the UN wre pointing out that there was NO legal mandate to take actiona dn athat the case woudl have to be presented, debated and AGREED before action. Not good enough for GWb who needed to who America how "powerful he/they werew" :(

Like all who try to justify it, the horror of him still in power is used.
There are many more "evil" people in power - arguably the American government has sanctioned as many deaths in the last 30 years as Saddam - just not all in the one place ( and some of the many deaths attributeed were in civil war so legally aren't murder !! )
Yes he needed controlled. So did Quadaffi. NOW a friend of the west without the need to rape his country and illegally capture him !!
See the difference betweeen doing the right thing and doing the LEGALLY correct thing. Sometimes we are prevented from doing the "right thing" - coz if we had, GWB would never BEEN President - or at least a re-election woudl have been called !!!

Everyone does. That's a no-brainer !
BUT, how you go about it matters.
If we allow a nation to bully another then it's wrong.
If we feel we can JUSTIFY such illegal action and paint it as "freedom" then the author IS biased and bigotted.
Answer this, was it right what Colonel North did ? I usually find that seperates the men from the boys :) the biased from the objective !!
The truth is all of those intelligence agencies were both right and wrong. Saddam gave money to his aides and others to buy materials to build WMD. This has been traced. But the aides didn't follow through. They took Saddam's money but did not go through the process of making sure the Iraqi scientists built the weapons. These intelligence organizations, of course, had no way of knowing if these WMD were being built. They knew that money was supplied for it and assumed the illegal process of building them was going on. I'm surprised you don't know this.

You're wrong- there was a legal right. The cease-fire agreement said (again) the U.S. had the right to resume hostilities if Iraq/Saddam broke it and he obviously did. You really should read the resolution (1441, I believe). The U.N. did not even do it's job. It did even uphold the laws (broken resolutions).

As for France, Russia and Germany, no, nice try, but it's anything but "right-wing propaganda." Is that the best you can do. You really to read updated news more. It is documented that those countries did trade with Iraq, and looked the other way when Saddam was breaking international laws because they (the governments of said countries) liked the profit they were getting.

The right thing was done- Bush was elected president (twice). And thank God for that. Gore and/or Kerry (both extreme liberals) would be poor choices to fight terrorism!

And don't forget- Bush did not go about this himself- there were other (coalition) nations with us, including England.

[Fleet 500]

Only part of the way, sadly the last an most important part had NO legal right to act. FACT.

NO. The UN resolution did NOT state that action COUDL be taken it threatened that action WOUDL be taken. Bush chose to NOT wait for the UN to agree that the would be a could :(

oops, liek Bush you ignore that the UN wre pointing out that there was NO legal mandate to take actiona dn athat the case woudl have to be presented, debated and AGREED before action.

Answer this, was it right what Colonel North did ? I usually find that seperates the men from the boys :) the biased from the objective !!
Resolution 1441:
Check it out here:
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Then tell me, what's the use of resolutions if they are not enforced?

Colonel North withheld some information because releasing it would have put his troops' life at a big risk. He did it to protect the safety of his troops.

[Matra et Alpine]

The truth is all of those intelligence agencies were both right and wrong. Saddam gave money to his aides and others to buy materials to build WMD. This has been traced. But the aides didn't follow through. They took Saddam's money but did not go through the process of making sure the Iraqi scientists built the weapons. These intelligence organizations, of course, had no way of knowing if these WMD were being built. They knew that money was supplied for it and assumed the illegal process of building them was going on. I'm surprised you don't know this.
Go back and read it again. What you have written.
See, the so-called "Intelligence agencies" did NOT do their job.
No PROOF, and that makes any action illegal in the eyes of the law.
Tou can't get away from that point no mater how much spin you try to put on it. Both the US and the UK government have BOTH put their hadsn up to that truth !!
AND they were ASKED if this funding happened and when they added but no evidence of actually beign built they wre IGNORED.
I'm surprised you don't know this.
You're wrong- there was a legal right. The cease-fire agreement said (again) the U.S. had the right to resume hostilities if Iraq/Saddam broke it and he obviously did. You really should read the resolution (1441, I believe). The U.N. did not even do it's job. It did even uphold the laws (broken resolutions).
Suggest you read MY words again carefully and review the ACTUAL wording of 1441 especially item 12 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; NOTICE, the UN resolution says the CONVENE to consider. THIS overides the earlier 660 resolution adn is the point Bush and Blair ignored. It was hence illegal and NOT supported by a UN mandate. I suspect you've got your info from a right-wing website who conveniently suggest that the eralier text supercedes item 12. if you bbother to read 1441 ( as many Britains did back in 2002 !! ) you will see it clearly doesn't !!
As for France, Russia and Germany, no, nice try, but it's anything but "right-wing propaganda." Is that the best you can do. You really to read updated news more. It is documented that those countries did trade with Iraq, and looked the other way when Saddam was breaking international laws because they (the governments of said countries) liked the profit they were getting.
So they traded.
Trade is by private companies.
GOVERNMENTS did not "trade" and it's a deliberate twist by neo-conservatists and right-wing-loonies to suggest otherwise.
Let's see, who might have a better understanding of this - a Eureopan who reads and understands Eureopan reports or and American who watches CNN and NBC ?
And you need to realise how much trade Americn compaies were doing also !!
Clearly the Ollie North point was missed on you. Even if a nation DID trade, Colonel North si now an American hero - a man who traded with Iran adn the Contra rebels with governmetn backing. See you can't play dirty and then try to act innocent if soeone else does it ( alledgedly ). THINK ABOUT IT :(
The right thing was done- Bush was elected president (twice). And thank God for that. Gore and/or Kerry (both extreme liberals) would be poor choices to fight terrorism!
The US has complained about elections in many nations that have had LESS contentious issues than the Florida debacle. If that happened in Iraq the US woudl be the first to call for a re-vote. Hypocrisy is the final refuge of the bigot.
And don't forget- Bush did not go about this himself- there were other (coalition) nations with us, including England.
Get it right it was Britain.
I've already given the reason as a British citizen. The majority did NOT support and continue not to. "Other nations" is already known to be non-tenable by anyone who reads widely enough. 3000 miles away and viewing through the biased CNN adn NBC you haven't a clue what is happening here.
Our news spends an equal time on international events as it does national and local. I'm always astounded how littel international information is actually presented in US programs. if you realise that you realise how little you realise :)
The true "free" nations of the planet did NOT support it.
The Bush dynasty has lied to the American public and has used the fear of a non-existant enemy to unite and stregthen their hold. If you get the chance look out for a 4-part BBC documentary aired here last month. Not a Fahrenheit 911 film, a well researched and balanced presentation of facts. The BBC STILL remain acknowledged as being objective ( hell Blair forced the resignation of the last Director because he dared fight the government ) fortunately the replacement board re-iterated the need for the BBC to be objective whether it ended up anti-goernment was down to the facts.
Anyway the program clearly documented the creation of the fear of Al Quaedha when NO SUCH organisation actually existed !! Find it and watch it as it woudl take weeks of writing to explain it here !!

[Matra et Alpine]

Colonel North withheld some information because releasing it would have put his troops' life at a big risk. He did it to protect the safety of his troops.
ah so we are now conveniently forgetting that he secretly traded with Iran to generate funds to give to Contra rebels to support a civil war in another state.
SEE, you try to ignore the obvious point to avoid facing up to the truth.
To some "freedom fighters" that 'truth' is that what happens in the world can be justified on the basis that the US did it and got away with it. Hell the guy is now considered a hero :(

[Matra et Alpine]

I suggest you read the US esponse to the UN dated 8th Novemener 2002.
In it the US government, refereing to resolution 1441, stated
As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.


SO, they clearly understood that 14341 did NOT give them the right to take action without refereing back to the UN.
Bush clearly expected everyoen would jump on his banwagen and steamroller internationla law aside. They didn't and he had to go back on what was said in November.

But I suspect you'll say that's a lie :)



RIGHT WING LOONY ALERT - woo- woo- woo

Pleae I'm not responding again as you're blinded by your environment, lack of a world view, biased media, unwillingness/inability to be objective.

no point.

Back to the SB :)

[Fleet 500]

Some questions (and answers) for you:

Q- Who executed the poltical opposition, the U.S. or Saddam?
A- Saddam

Q- Who gassed his own people which includes women and children?
A- Saddam

Q- Who raped, kidnapped, pilaged and murdered innocent civilians?
A- Saddam

Q- Who attacked a non-agressor nation during a war he started?
A- Saddam

Q- Who criticizes Bush more than he criticizes Saddam?
A- You.

[Fleet 500]

Go back and read it again. What you have written.
See, the so-called "Intelligence agencies" did NOT do their job.
No PROOF, and that makes any action illegal in the eyes of the law.

Suggest you read MY words again carefully and review the ACTUAL wording of 1441 especially item 12 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; NOTICE, the UN resolution says the CONVENE to consider. THIS overides the earlier 660 resolution adn is the point Bush and Blair ignored. It was hence illegal and NOT supported by a UN mandate. I suspect you've got your info from a right-wing website who conveniently suggest that the eralier text supercedes item 12.

The US has complained about elections in many nations that have had LESS contentious issues than the Florida debacle. If that happened in Iraq the US woudl be the first to call for a re-vote. Hypocrisy is the final refuge of the bigot.


The Bush dynasty has lied to the American public and has used the fear of a non-existant enemy to unite and stregthen their hold.
But you're ignoring the fact that Saddam didn't cooperate with the U.S. and U.N. He was asked to prove he had destroyed his WMD. He didn't which broke U.N. law.

The cease-fire agreement said EXACTLY that military action could be taken if Saddam broke it, and he did.

What about Florida in the 2000 election? Bush won that state, Gore (illegally) had the deadline for certification extended in hopes of getting more votes. The U.S. Supreme Court said that since there was no legal reason for extending the hand counts, it put a stop to it. (By Florida law, hand recounts are to be done only if there is/are voting machine malfunctions, obvious fraud, or a natural disaster such as a hurricane. None of these happened so the hand recounts were not legally done.)

Again, you cannot say the "Bush dynasty" lied to the public. He went by info supplied to him. Now you can say he is responsible, but it is NOT a lie to act on info you believe is true.
To the 1.3 million that Saddam has killed, I would say they thought Saddam was anything BUT a "non-existant" enemy.

[Fleet 500]

SO, they clearly understood that 14341 did NOT give them the right to take action without refereing back to the UN.
Bush clearly expected everyoen would jump on his banwagen and steamroller internationla law aside. They didn't and he had to go back on what was said in November.

But I suspect you'll say that's a lie :)

RIGHT WING LOONY ALERT - woo- woo- woo

Pleae I'm not responding again as you're blinded by your environment, lack of a world view, biased media, unwillingness/inability to be objective.

no point.

Back to the SB :)
There's no way the U.N. would have voted to actually enforce their own laws (!) and take action against Saddam because France would never have voted yes (that country wanted to keep buying Iraq's oil).

That link I provided was from Google, not a "right-wing" website.

So, because we disagree, I am a "Right Wing Loony?" I suppose you are one of those "Open-minded" (actually empty-headed :D ) liberals. You know, those who claims they are open-minded but in reality are just the opposite.

[crisis]

I know, I know... you won't believe anything (even real life accidents) if it favors American cars! Same old story.
Whether I believe the outcome of a picture of an accident posted by a less than authoratative source has no baring on facts. Coventry posted facts from a govenrment motoring body. You post pictures from a pair of people who for all we know may not even exist.

[crisis]

Are you back again? :rolleyes:

Well, make up YOUR mind... do classic cars have crumple zones or not?
I would say that a 5-foot long hood and 4-foot long rear deck are indeed crumple zones. They will and do "crumple" on impact (if the impact is severe enough; if it's not, then the paint gets chipped while the other- newer- car has crumpled sheet metal).
The pictures you show indicate they dont crumple. Combine this with the fact they send the motor and transmission into the passenger compartment whereas newer cars are designed for these to go under the chassis in the event of an accident, another point to new cars.

[crisis]

France has a STRONG tradition of the law beign fair and equal.
Greenpeace may have a few points to argue here. ;)

Germany are sticklers for obeying rules.
To beatings has got to sink in.

Cant' say Russia's motives
Let me. Beyond reproach doesnt rank highly.


Like all who try to justify it, the horror of him still in power is used.
There are many more "evil" people in power - arguably the American government has sanctioned as many deaths in the last 30 years as Saddam - just not all in the one place ( and some of the many deaths attributeed were in civil war so legally aren't murder !! )
So if you cant get em all dont get none? I struggle with this. I dont like the US acting unilaterally but I have no problem with the downfall of Saddam and his regime. Even if there are other evil people in power. Do we really want the US to invade all of the so called evil rulers?

So did Quadaffi. NOW a friend of the west without the need to rape his country and illegally capture him !!
Scared straight!

[SlickHolden]

A guy around the corner had a HQ 1 tonne ute, One night he had to much to drink and sent his car into a street pole, The motor to his luck went to the passanger side and he walked away, With the cops:)

So this is heading down the political road now ??

[Matra et Alpine]

Some questions (and answers) for you:

Q- Who criticizes Bush more than he criticizes Saddam?
A- You.
First, lets remove THAT lie.
If you weren't so biased you will have seen that I consistently have condemned Saddam. At not tiem did I ever say he should have been left.
WHAT you dont' grasp is I am pointing out that it SHOULD have been done legally. AND could have been except for someone who watched too many "Rambo" movies :)

Now a question.

Q: Who when they are losing a point tries to bring an irrelvant analysis in to the debate to try to avodi the egg-on-face-look.
A: hands up class..... correct everyone gave the correct answer :)

[Matra et Alpine]

But you're ignoring the fact that Saddam didn't cooperate with the U.S. and U.N. He was asked to prove he had destroyed his WMD. He didn't which broke U.N. law.
The cease-fire agreement said EXACTLY that military action could be taken if Saddam broke it, and he did.
Stop your nonsense.
Go and OBJECTIVELY read 1441. 1441 put 660 and 667 into context. Read them too if you have to.
Read the initial US response to 1441 and then read what the analysts said AFTER that.
You dont' know your own nations actions. You shouldn't discuss what you dont' know.
I gave you the relevant section of 1441 - rather than just glibly citing it.
I gave you the official US response which agreed that no action woudl be taken.

What the US did NEXT. Was to publicly announce that whilst it agreed in the UN chamber on the action to return to the UN under 1441 that Persident Bush STILL RETAINED the right to do what he decided was in the best interests of the defence of the American people. I'll give you the reference if you want as you're unlikely to have bothered to have investigated it :(

THAT was never a UN agreement. It was a US statement.
Thus actions were illegal as a sovereign nation is limited by international law from taking action against another sovereign nation.
It's right wing nuts like you that give the right wing parties a bad name :(
Get the facts straight before you try to twist them !!
What about Florida in the 2000 election? Bush won that state, Gore (illegally) had the deadline for certification extended in hopes of getting more votes. The U.S. Supreme Court said that since there was no legal reason for extending the hand counts, it put a stop to it. (By Florida law, hand recounts are to be done only if there is/are voting machine malfunctions, obvious fraud, or a natural disaster such as a hurricane. None of these happened so the hand recounts were not legally done.)
"chad". All the hand count and follow on issues were secondary. THERE was suspicion on the vote - end of story. THAT should have been enough for a revote to be called.
IF it had happened in Somalia or Korea or anywhere else the American's would have said it was a manipulated elections and have raised concerns in the UN to hamake them do the election again. If you don't think that's the case then you again need to read a bit more on US actions in international matters - and get the INTERNATIONAL perspective not the CNN one !!
Again, you cannot say the "Bush dynasty" lied to the public. He went by info supplied to him. Now you can say he is responsible, but it is NOT a lie to act on info you believe is true.
To the 1.3 million that Saddam has killed, I would say they thought Saddam was anything BUT a "non-existant" enemy.
You're befuddling the issue by saying how bad Saddam was. That isn't in discussion.
You CONFUSE AGAIN the lack of seperation between legal right and moral choice. Don't do it again as it's irrelevant. if you cannot present a reasoned discourse without resorting to repeating the same illegal action tarted up as 'right' then don't post anything.
To return to the POINT about the intelligence. A president ( and prime minister ) MUST take every step to confirm guilt. JUST as in a court of law the judge must ensure due process is followed to confirm guilt. There were enough question raised BY the officials about the so-called intelligence that it SHOULD have been checked. BUT that wouldn't fit the agenda. History PROVES they knew it was dubioius - have you even looked into the Dr David Kelly's report and death ?
Bush WAS informed that the intelligence was suspect. It's been accepted that's the case. To take action KNOWING that is sinful. To order the deaths of an 'enemy' and knowing it would cost the deaths of our own armed forces on THAT basis is sinful. Thankfully GWB is a good Christain and knows who he has to answer too.
Congressional evidence citation "there is now confirmation from the
administration's own leading weapons inspector that the intelligence
community produced greatly flawed assessments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. It
is my opinion that flawed intelligence and the administration's
exaggerations concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction resulted
from an effort to make the threat appear more imminent and the case for
military action against Iraq appear more urgent than they were.
"
take it up with your congressman if you still dont' liek the facts.

[Matra et Alpine]

There's no way the U.N. would have voted to actually enforce their own laws (!) and take action against Saddam because France would never have voted yes (that country wanted to keep buying Iraq's oil).
You really are the right wing equivalent of Michael Moore :)
There were dissenterse for LEGAL reasons.
Those legal reasons werwe sufficient.
It is irrelevant if oil was an issue.
THE ACTIONS WERE ILLEGAL.
Trying to justify them on the basis that someone might not give you permission is ATRICIOUS in a civilsed world !!
It's thinking like that that gets minorities stopped for being a moniroty and beaten up by the police. oh, wait that did happen and look in what country :(
Sorry to be flippant as friends got caught up in the riots, but you aren't looking at it legally and objectively. You are the ideal person that the neo-conservatists are targetting to make you "scared" of an enemy and to support their action both internaionally and at home.
That link I provided was from Google, not a "right-wing" website.
Was that the link to 1441 compelte reolution ? So have you by now read the section pointed out to you. You know the bit that says they have to come back to the UN. The bit that the US agreed to ? It wasn't the LINK I was referring to it was your lack of analysis and recognition of what it SAID.
It was repeating the extremists coments and NOT reading it for yourself that illicited the "right wing loony" comment :)
So, because we disagree, I am a "Right Wing Loony?" I suppose you are one of those "Open-minded" (actually empty-headed :D ) liberals. You know, those who claims they are open-minded but in reality are just the opposite.
Not because we disagree. Because you reflect an extreme point of view in spite of the facts.
I'm totally open minded. If I was close minded I woudl keep repeating propoganda and not engage in reasoning on the points raise. :cough: :cough: :)
To be open minded one tries to see all the points of view and tries to be "liberal" in interpretation and "fair" in action.
It's funny that only Americasn view "liberal" as bad :)

BUT you have to realise how intransigent, ill-informed and biased YOU are.

Just look at your comment about France above. You're the kind of guy who calls them "feedom fries" aren't you. Painting France as a "bad country" only helps people take power away from YOU the people. You'll likely never grasp how much the rest of the world actually pities the American public who are so clearly duped and manipulated. Please learn more about countries and their people before repeating purile nonsense.

Please, READ 1441 for yourself. READ the US response to the UN. READ the following response from the Whitehouse. See for yourself the duplicity.

[Matra et Alpine]

Greenpeace may have a few points to argue here. ;)
Long time ago. deplorable act, But I don't think it was ever reported how high it went. IIRC didn't the head of their secret service and some senior military guy resign. Whether they were patsies or the real culprits I don't know. I do remember there being a whole period of tit-for-tat going on between France and NZ at the time with the French trying to apply pressure to free their 'operatives' on the basis they "were only following orders". Yep, bad episode. But. hey, all our nations have skeletons in the cupboard - don't get me started on the bloody English and Scotland :)
To beatings has got to sink in.
Ouch, having worked there, it's in their nature and arguably what enabled leaders to take them to war :(
Let me. Beyond reproach doesnt rank highly.
More politely than I might have put it :)
Nowadays, disorganised and criminally led is more apt.
So if you cant get em all dont get none? I struggle with this. I dont like the US acting unilaterally but I have no problem with the downfall of Saddam and his regime. Even if there are other evil people in power. Do we really want the US to invade all of the so called evil rulers?
What I meant was if you DO get them - and we should try - then it must be by legal means and to the benefit of the population.
If smaller nations live in fear of having to do what the "big bullies" say then we are in for a tumultuous future. Lessons to be learned from the Portugese Empire, the Dutch empire, the French empire, the Belgian empire, the British Empire :(

[Matra et Alpine]

So this is heading down the political road now ??
You know when things are bad is when an Australian on UCP makes comments about it going off-topic :)

Message understood, SlickH !!

I've always loved the lines of the early 60s Stingray

[SlickHolden]

Ohh no matra has gone off topic again;) Bloody Scot's always off topic :p :D

As ansley would say... What's he like :D

[Matra et Alpine]

Ohh no matra has gone off topic again;) Bloody Scot's always off topic :p :D

As ansley would say... What's he like :D
n oway am I letting a convict berate me when my last comment was an American car I liked :)

PS: Is making a post about goin off topic actually contributing and going off topic itself ? it's from an Aussie, 'course it is :)

[SlickHolden]

Is off topic off topic or on topic off topic Which can be on topic???

german Scotish irish french 5th gen Aussie:p

Hey tell me this did the U.S back saddam in the war againts iran ??
And Did the CIA train that prick binbagladen ??

[Fleet 500]

Whether I believe the outcome of a picture of an accident posted by a less than authoratative source has no baring on facts. Coventry posted facts from a govenrment motoring body. You post pictures from a pair of people who for all we know may not even exist.
As I said, you refuse to believe anything that favors American cars! You just proved my point.

[Fleet 500]

There were dissenterse for LEGAL reasons.
Those legal reasons werwe sufficient.
It is irrelevant if oil was an issue.
THE ACTIONS WERE ILLEGAL.

I'm totally open minded.

BUT you have to realise how intransigent, ill-informed and biased YOU are.

Just look at your comment about France above. You're the kind of guy who calls them "feedom fries" aren't you. Painting France as a "bad country" only helps people take power away from YOU the people. You'll likely never grasp how much the rest of the world actually pities the American public who are so clearly duped and manipulated. Please learn more about countries and their people before repeating purile nonsense.

Very nice what you wrote (even though it's wrong). Again, the cease-fire agreement allowed the U.S. to resume military action. That is pure fact. And if you are really open-minded, you would agree. There is nothing illegal about enforcing a law.

What I posted (the 2000 election, the resumption of military action in Iraq, the fact that France and Germany and Russia were buying oil from Iraq, the fact that every major intelligence organization believed Saddam had WMD, etc) has nothing to do with "bias." It's fact.

France is not a friend (anymore) of the U.S. because of they proved how anti-American they are (and always have been).

Again, if you're really open-minded, tell me... is it a good thing that Bush liberated 52 million people? (Iraq and Afghanistan.) Is it a good thing that Saddam will never be able to sell any WMD to terrorists? (BTW, remember the ricin that was found in Great Britain? It was traced as having come from Iraq- but how can that be, that country had no WMD? :D .)
Is it a good thing that Bush realizes that the U.N. is an uneffective organization and did what had to be done? Is it a good thing that children in Afghanistan are going to school now? Is it a good thing that Iraqis were able to vote in a legitimate election for the first time in over 26 years?

[Fleet 500]

Hey tell me this did the U.S back saddam in the war againts iran ??

Yes, the U.S. backed Saddam for two good reasons...

1. Iran was very anti-American at the time. Iranians were out in the streets burning U.S. flags, for example.

2. The U.S. (wisely) did not want Iran to win because if Iran won, it would have had control of much of the Middle East. So the U.S. supplied Iraq with necessary war material in hopes that neither side would win. Which is exactly what happened.

[Fleet 500]

So if you cant get em all dont get none? I struggle with this. I dont like the US acting unilaterally but I have no problem with the downfall of Saddam and his regime. Even if there are other evil people in power. Do we really want the US to invade all of the so called evil rulers?

Actually, it wasn't unilaterally because we had 4 or 5 nations with us (in the actual invasion).

We don't want to invade all of the evil rulers... only the ones who are a threat to the U.S. Different nations can be handled in different ways. Notice how Syria said they would allow weapons inspections after we removed Saddam. Do you think they would have said that is we didn't go into Iraq and were still trying to get the U.N. to do something?

[SlickHolden]

Yes, the U.S. backed Saddam for two good reasons...

1. Iran was very anti-American at the time. Iranians were out in the streets burning U.S. flags, for example.

2. The U.S. (wisely) did not want Iran to win because if Iran won, it would have had control of much of the Middle East. So the U.S. supplied Iraq with necessary war material in hopes that neither side would win. Which is exactly what happened.
So it's allright to hug saddam on monday, But on friday we bomb you ??
And now lets blow up Iran after iraq:eek: Why not just blow the 2 up years ago save a lot of time now:p

Dam if i'm anti American am i going to be invaded:eek::D

but i'll tell you 2 words that are the most over used words i have ever herd or seen and that's ANTI AMERICAN

[Matra et Alpine]

Very nice what you wrote (even though it's wrong). Again, the cease-fire agreement allowed the U.S. to resume military action. That is pure fact. And if you are really open-minded, you would agree. There is nothing illegal about enforcing a law.
Did you bother reading 1441 and that it was the NEW resolution for the new situation in Iraq. Your bias is really NOT a credit to you our the image of American's online :(
PLEASE read the US responses I pointed you to. They clearly accepted the need to coem back to the UN under 1441, but then changed their mind. It's either legal or not.
What I posted (the 2000 election, the resumption of military action in Iraq, the fact that France and Germany and Russia were buying oil from Iraq, the fact that every major intelligence organization believed Saddam had WMD, etc) has nothing to do with "bias." It's fact.
ah, but you forgot that in posting those "facts" you henced made the leap to make them the reasons for UN not allowign GWB carte-blanche. BTW, remember all the other nations in the UN who also said NO :)
On the "intelligence" let me tell you ONE MORE TIME and see if it sinks in. Go and read about Kelly, go and read the reporst on the investigation into the processes in useing that intelligence and waken up to that fact thet they KNEW it wasn't definitive.
NOBODY should commit an act of war without being 100% sure.
France is not a friend (anymore) of the U.S. because of they proved how anti-American they are (and always have been).
That's typical right wing neo-conservatism BS.
There is NO reason for that attitude and is it is fuelled by extremists.
BTW, if they have "always" been anti-American can you explain the Statue of Liberty ? :) oops :) You have been manipulated !!!
And again you confuse anti-American and anti-American-illegal-action. There is a difference - even ig GWB refuses to acknowledge it :(
Again, if you're really open-minded, tell me... is it a good thing that Bush liberated 52 million people? (Iraq and Afghanistan.) Is it a good thing that Saddam will never be able to sell any WMD to terrorists? (BTW, remember the ricin that was found in Great Britain? It was traced as having come from Iraq- but how can that be, that country had no WMD? :D .)
Is it a good thing that Bush realizes that the U.N. is an uneffective organization and did what had to be done? Is it a good thing that children in Afghanistan are going to school now? Is it a good thing that Iraqis were able to vote in a legitimate election for the first time in over 26 years?
GO BACK AND READ WHAT I WROTE.
See, you're taking a position that is untenable because I have never said he should not have been brought to justice. Keeping repeating nonsense like that isn't doing your reputation any good !!!!
On the ricin, get your facts straight. It was Algerians who were arrested in the UK. There was evidence of Al'Quihada links, but they aren't Iraqi either !WHERE the ricin came from wasn't clear, but in the investigation reported in the UK it was possible it came from Georgia or Chechnya !!
BUT in typical modern-day-GWB style you've been conned into believing everything and everyone is Iraq. Lied to so that illegal actiosn can be justified :(
So factually WRONG !!!!

[Matra et Alpine]

Actually, it wasn't unilaterally because we had 4 or 5 nations with us (in the actual invasion).

We don't want to invade all of the evil rulers... only the ones who are a threat to the U.S. Different nations can be handled in different ways. Notice how Syria said they would allow weapons inspections after we removed Saddam. Do you think they would have said that is we didn't go into Iraq and were still trying to get the U.N. to do something?
You can't know that.

For example you already sidelined Quaddaffi saying it was fear.

If that was the case, how come he's spent the last 5+ years talking to british politicians and trying to resore relationships ?

The world changes.

4 or 5 nations. I see the same statistical evidence as "safe classic cars" pervades :(

[crisis]

What I meant was if you DO get them - and we should try - then it must be by legal means and to the benefit of the population.
If smaller nations live in fear of having to do what the "big bullies" say then we are in for a tumultuous future. Lessons to be learned from the Portugese Empire, the Dutch empire, the French empire, the Belgian empire, the British Empire :(
How do you invade a country legally? Iraqs population would be benefited now if the remnants of the previous regime were not being assited by AlQuedas trouble makers. Yes the colonial Europeans are to balme for much of whats left over but fk knows I wouldnt be here if it werent for the fact they were all racing to own the world a hundred odd years ago. :)

[crisis]

As I said, you refuse to believe anything that favors American cars! You just proved my point.
Previous comment already requoted once for your benifit.
"This is where I started.

"Originally Posted by Blitz_
That is y i still luv my old skool muscle cars, my dads charger, runs 13's all day, reliable as hell, raw power, lacks refinment and that iz what gives it its character, the things that are wrong with it make it so much better than the mercs and beemers that go around town, they even turn thier heads when we zoom by.

I wrote
And sucks down twice the amount of fuel a similalry poweful modern engine would. And would kill you quicker if things went pear shaped. But thats not the point of old cars. It is more about the romanticism and nostalgia which is fair enough."

So As I said, looks and styling are subjective and are up to personal preference. Nothing wrong there. "

I like Corvettes, Vipers, Mustangs, Camaros, Firebirds and probably some others I have never seen. I like Australian Commodores and I bought one but I wont say they are the ultimate cars. I would agree with anyone who said they are not the best manufactured cars in the , or the safest, quickest, best handling etc. I can admit and accept their faults.
So that actually doesnt help your point much at all.

[crisis]

France is not a friend (anymore) of the U.S. because of they proved how anti-American they are (and always have been).
Just because Bush said "you are either with us or against us " does not make it law or gospel. That comment is wrong and as simplistic as the opinions of some people. There are degrees. Because France and Germany did not assist the invasion does not mean the were on Saddams side. With such simplistic rationale that would mean they would have actively fought on Iraqs side.


Again, if you're really open-minded, tell me... is it a good thing that Bush liberated 52 million people? (Iraq and Afghanistan.) Is it a good thing that Saddam will never be able to sell any WMD to terrorists? (BTW, remember the ricin that was found in Great Britain? It was traced as having come from Iraq- but how can that be, that country had no WMD? :D .)
Is it a good thing that Bush realizes that the U.N. is an uneffective organization and did what had to be done? Is it a good thing that children in Afghanistan are going to school now? Is it a good thing that Iraqis were able to vote in a legitimate election for the first time in over 26 years?
All good. So is it North Korea next, then Iran, then Saudi Arabia (they are a non democratic state suspected of suporting terrorists)? What about North Africa? You cant argue in one paragraph that the US only invades countries that are a threat to them and in the next that they actually went to war to achieve freedom for Iraqis. Why cant you see the areas of grey?

[CdocZ]

wow.......from a conversation about old american cars, to whether or not america should have invaded iraq.......

[crisis]

wow.......from a conversation about old american cars, to whether or not america should have invaded iraq.......
A lot of threads end up around that.

[CdocZ]

why is that? really......anyway, this is a automotive website/forum, and even more specifically, and automotive part of that forum. if you want to argue politics, dont do it here. also, why is that so incredibly important? move on! its a bit late to "un-invade"

[Fleet 500]

Just because Bush said "you are either with us or against us " does not make it law or gospel. That comment is wrong and as simplistic as the opinions of some people. There are degrees. Because France and Germany did not assist the invasion does not mean the were on Saddams side. With such simplistic rationale that would mean they would have actively fought on Iraqs side.

All good. So is it North Korea next, then Iran, then Saudi Arabia (they are a non democratic state suspected of suporting terrorists)? What about North Africa? You cant argue in one paragraph that the US only invades countries that are a threat to them and in the next that they actually went to war to achieve freedom for Iraqis. Why cant you see the areas of grey?
They didn't fight on Iraqs' side because, like I said already, they wanted to keep buying their oil.

Again, different countries are dealt with differently. Besides, Bush would get criticized no matter what he does... if he decides to invade and/or fight with those countries, he will be called a "warmonger." If he doesn't, he has to listen to people like you who say, "why doesn't he do anything!"

[Fleet 500]

why is that? really......anyway, this is a automotive website/forum, and even more specifically, and automotive part of that forum. if you want to argue politics, dont do it here. also, why is that so incredibly important? move on! its a bit late to "un-invade"
Have you noticed, though... it's almost always the side that was against taking action against Saddam/Iraq that brings up politics in the first place.
I didn't start the topic, I just responded to the post that started it.

[Fleet 500]

ah, but you forgot that in posting those "facts" you henced made the leap to make them the reasons for UN not allowign GWB carte-blanche. BTW, remember all the other nations in the UN who also said NO :)

NOBODY should commit an act of war without being 100% sure.

That's typical right wing neo-conservatism BS.
There is NO reason for that attitude and is it is fuelled by extremists.
BTW, if they have "always" been anti-American can you explain the Statue of Liberty ? :) oops :) You have been manipulated !!!


On the ricin, get your facts straight. It was Algerians who were arrested in the UK. There was evidence of Al'Quihada links, but they aren't Iraqi either !WHERE the ricin came from wasn't clear, but in the investigation reported in the UK it was possible it came from Georgia or Chechnya !!
You are forgetting one "slight" fact... Iraq broke 17 U.N. resolutions. Don't those count? Was it okay to break all of those resolutions and nothing be done about it?

We were 100% that Iraq broke 17 resoultions. Not one or two, but *17*. You may think it's okay for Iraq to do that; not I.

Calling things "right-wing, neo-conservatism" just makes your argument weaker.

What about the Statue of Liberty? It was a gift from France which was finished in 1886. Back when the government of France was really a friend of the U.S.

No, the ricin came from Iraq. I keep up with those things and I remember reading it was traced back to Iraq (I think northern Iraq).

[Matra et Alpine]

How do you invade a country legally?
With a UN mandate - like the first time with Kuwait !!

[Matra et Alpine]

They didn't fight on Iraqs' side because, like I said already, they wanted to keep buying their oil.

Again, different countries are dealt with differently. Besides, Bush would get criticized no matter what he does... if he decides to invade and/or fight with those countries, he will be called a "warmonger." If he doesn't, he has to listen to people like you who say, "why doesn't he do anything!"
Those weren't the only 2 options.

He COULD have followed through on the legal 1441 actions.
IF he had allowed the additional 3 months of detection as requested back at the UN - to let the inpsection teams COMPLETE their work. Then proper action would have been formulated and taken. Properaly constitued legal escalation.

BTW, it's dangerous to get on a high-horse about UN actions and breaking them . Israel's been doing it for 30 years and US blocked MANY times !! So don't go throwing stones in that glasshoues :)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well, this is just a weird thread. This is like the 6th time this issue has hijacked a thread.

America should not have done it, they have, now they need to fix it.

The elections were well done, but should have been delayed.

The UN needed to be stronger in it's resolve not to invade iraq without the proper checks being done, it's set a dangerous precedent.

And i've never heard the President be yelled at for doing nothing, he's always up to something anyway.

[Matra et Alpine]

You are forgetting one "slight" fact... Iraq broke 17 U.N. resolutions. Don't those count? Was it okay to break all of those resolutions and nothing be done about it?
PLEASE, will you go and read 1441 and understand the legally agreed steps and conditions and actions.
You are like a little kid sometimes.
PLEASE grasp international law or if you cannot then keep quiet.
You know what they say - better to be quiet and thought the fool :)
We were 100% that Iraq broke 17 resoultions. Not one or two, but *17*. You may think it's okay for Iraq to do that; not I.
Neither did the UN. Why do you think there were more resolutions ? They got added and each had more punitive measures than the previous. It's like a thief, the courst don't jail him for 20 years the first time, nor the second nor the third, but after a while the sentences get harder.
Calling things "right-wing, neo-conservatism" just makes your argument weaker.
I'm only trying to get you to investigate and realise.
It doesn't WEAKEN my argument at all as I'm only pointing out the factual errors and omission in the views you profess on Iraq and international law and UN resolutions. I use the term to correctly identify the groups who wish America to feel fear. Liek I sad before, try to watch recent BBC exposee.
What about the Statue of Liberty? It was a gift from France which was finished in 1886. Back when the government of France was really a friend of the U.S.
Ah, but earlier you said they were ALWAYS ANTI-AMERICAN.
make your mind up. OR perhaps stop shifting to avoid the facts :)
No, the ricin came from Iraq. I keep up with those things and I remember reading it was traced back to Iraq (I think northern Iraq).
Are you talking of the ricin in the UK ?
If you are then you are mistaken.
An item that WAS traced back to Al'Qaida ( NOT Iraq ) was the instructions for making ricin. These instructiosn were actually taken from a US source :)
Pleae get the facts straight.
In fact, please cite the source for that conclusion so we can cross-check it with British police reports ( after all it happened here )> I suspeect - AGAIN - that biased media guessed or guided the "made in Iraq" and then never corrected it later. So many folks don't knwo the actual facts, only the conjecture htat CNN et al liek to "get to air first" with :(

[Fleet 500]

Neither did the UN. Why do you think there were more resolutions ? They got added and each had more punitive measures than the previous. It's like a thief, the courst don't jail him for 20 years the first time, nor the second nor the third, but after a while the sentences get harder.

Ah, but earlier you said they were ALWAYS ANTI-AMERICAN.
make your mind up.

Are you talking of the ricin in the UK ?
If you are then you are mistaken.
An item that WAS traced back to Al'Qaida ( NOT Iraq ) was the instructions for making ricin.
As we all know, adding more resoulutions did not help at all! Saddam ignored all of them.

Where did I say the French were always anti-American? I don't remember saying that.

It was traced back to al Qaeda operating IN Iraq.

[Fleet 500]

He COULD have followed through on the legal 1441 actions.
IF he had allowed the additional 3 months of detection as requested back at the UN - to let the inpsection teams COMPLETE their work. Then proper action would have been formulated and taken. Properaly constitued legal escalation.
Are you serious? Do you really think waiting 3 months would have made any difference? The U.N. inspectors were kept out of certain areas. The only way the whole country could have been searched is by an invasion.

Saddam ignored all of those (17) resolutions for 12 years! I doubt he would have cooperated. The only way to deal with him was by force.

[CdocZ]

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=241573#post241573
political thread. hell, maybe even make it a sticky?

[Fleet 500]

America should not have done it, they have, now they need to fix it.

The elections were well done, but should have been delayed.

The UN needed to be stronger in it's resolve not to invade iraq without the proper checks being done, it's set a dangerous precedent.

And i've never heard the President be yelled at for doing nothing, he's always up to something anyway.
Do you realize that if "America should not have done it," Saddam would still be torturing and killing his own people right now? Right as you are typing on your keyboard, the Iraqi military would be breaking into houses of Iraqi citizens, taking fathers (and sometimes mothers), torturing, raping and eventually murdering them. Saddam's sons putting people's limbs into grinding machines and listening to them scream.

I disagree they should have been delayed. That would have sent a message to the terrorists that we are in doubt.

That's the point- the President does something. Unlike the last U.S. president who treated the multiple terrorist attacks in the '90s (like the '93 World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing and the U.S.S. Cole bombing) like crimes instead of terrorist attacks.

[crisis]

why is that? really......anyway, this is a automotive website/forum, and even more specifically, and automotive part of that forum. if you want to argue politics, dont do it here. also, why is that so incredibly important? move on! its a bit late to "un-invade"
Maybe in the wrong forum but it ends up that way because people still want to discuss it. The topic is really about the future of the world.

[crisis]

They didn't fight on Iraqs' side because, like I said already, they wanted to keep buying their oil.
But wouldnt that make them his friends and ensure them first shot at the oil? :confused:

Again, different countries are dealt with differently.
Why are different countries dealt with differently? That gets to the main point of the matter. Why is Iraq invaded for doing no more than Iran or North Korea, you know the others in the axis of evil?

Besides, Bush would get criticized no matter what he does... if he decides to invade and/or fight with those countries, he will be called a "warmonger." If he doesn't, he has to listen to people like you who say, "why doesn't he do anything!"
That I agree with.

[crisis]

With a UN mandate - like the first time with Kuwait !!
That only makes it legal to countries in the UN. What gives them authority over the countries who are not?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Do you realize that if "America should not have done it," Saddam would still be torturing and killing his own people right now? Right as you are typing on your keyboard, the Iraqi military would be breaking into houses of Iraqi citizens, taking fathers (and sometimes mothers), torturing, raping and eventually murdering them. Saddam's sons putting people's limbs into grinding machines and listening to them scream.

Erm, Like the U.S. Breaks into homes of "Suspected Terrorists" and takes them away? Whats the differance? one was a mad dictator, the other an ill-informed "Do gooder".... And wheres the evidence of them being Ground up?

I disagree they should have been delayed. That would have sent a message to the terrorists that we are in doubt.

No, it would have appeased the world into coming around perhaps to the U.S. point of view, by not letting the process work, they've undermined it.That's the point- the President does something. Unlike the last U.S. president who treated the multiple terrorist attacks in the '90s (like the '93 World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing and the U.S.S. Cole bombing) like crimes instead of terrorist attacks.

The last president also acted throughout the Kosovo era and delt unilaterally with slobidan milosevic, which you kindly ignored.

It's all well and good to be seen as doing something, but you have to remember that it is not what you do, it's the way you do it. there was no doubt that saddam was a dictator, but you have to remember that he was still a sovereign power, and if the U.S. runs about the world toppling governments (no matter how bad they are) then the world will be worse than if that government was allowed to continue.

[crisis]

The last president also acted throughout the Kosovo era and delt unilaterally with slobidan milosevic, which you kindly ignored.

It's all well and good to be seen as doing something, but you have to remember that it is not what you do, it's the way you do it. there was no doubt that saddam was a dictator, but you have to remember that he was still a sovereign power, and if the U.S. runs about the world toppling governments (no matter how bad they are) then the world will be worse than if that government was allowed to continue.
But WW2 was not a unilateral act. The issue is very difficult to settle. What needs to be understood is that the US may have acted illegally or whatever but in the end they did the world and Iraq a favour. Was it their place to do it? , how much ongoing trouble will result?, will the US feel they can repaet this type of action? , etc. Combined with the self interest aspect that makes it less altruistic and makes a mockery of their "freedom" claims.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

That may be so, but what you've raised is also correct. There will be many questions raised which may favour or incriminate the U.S. policy and actions in Iraq. I'm sure many iraqis are just as happy with the americans then they were with saddam though, not very.

Once the Election is called i'm guessing a Quick exit strategy, 6-12 months, at most.

[crisis]

That may be so, but what you've raised is also correct. There will be many questions raised which may favour or incriminate the U.S. policy and actions in Iraq. I'm sure many iraqis are just as happy with the americans then they were with saddam though, not very.

Once the Election is called i'm guessing a Quick exit strategy, 6-12 months, at most.
Many people are crying out for the US to get out asap (not least the US service people) and Iraqis but I hope they are not being too premature. The Iraqi security forces will have a handfull when they are left to themselves.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

They can barely protect themselves while the americans are still there, it doesn't help that they are seen as allies to the U.S. and thus are targeted......

[Fleet 500]

Why are different countries dealt with differently? That gets to the main point of the matter. Why is Iraq invaded for doing no more than Iran or North Korea, you know the others in the axis of evil?

Because some countries can be negotiated with and/or have pressure put on them by neighboring countries (China putting pressure on N. Korea, for instance.) As was shown from 1991 to 2003, negotiation did not work with Iraq.

[Fleet 500]

Once the Election is called i'm guessing a Quick exit strategy, 6-12 months, at most.
I think so, too. Around that time period. Let's hope it happens and Iraq can be not only a free country, but one that can take care of itself.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

And Negotiation has not worked for N.Korea, or Iran.

the fact that it's been done does not mean it's working, it means it's been attempted. Not like Iraq.

It's probably better to leave someone like Iran or N.Korea alone, they represent a real threat to world peace and are much more unstable than the average country. Lord knows we wouldn't want to try and topple someone who may actually put up a fight.......

Did anyone else hear the story about Kim Jong Il's apparant death at the hands of his cousin? Utter trash, i'm sure.

The sooner Iraq can operate freely (Albeit the U.S. Interpretation of Freedom) The better. but then that frees the american army up for a new attack on somewhere......

[Fleet 500]

And Negotiation has not worked for N.Korea, or Iran.

the fact that it's been done does not mean it's working, it means it's been attempted. Not like Iraq.

It's probably better to leave someone like Iran or N.Korea alone, they represent a real threat to world peace and are much more unstable than the average country. Lord knows we wouldn't want to try and topple someone who may actually put up a fight.......

Did anyone else hear the story about Kim Jong Il's apparant death at the hands of his cousin? Utter trash, i'm sure.
It hasn't worked yet, but it would worth it to keep trying.

I think it would be very dangerous to leave those countries "alone." If they are illegally building nuclear weapons, we should know about it and not wait until they use it.

No, I didn't hear that story. I don't believe it, either.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

It hasn't worked yet, but it would worth it to keep trying.

I think it would be very dangerous to leave those countries "alone." If they are illegally building nuclear weapons, we should know about it and not wait until they use it.

No, I didn't hear that story. I don't believe it, either.

It is dangerous to leave them alone, but isn't it more dangerous to provoke them with veiled threats and "Axis of Evil" Lists?

And i'm sure the U.S. has been negotiating with N.Korea and Iran for much longer than it has Iraq, remember Iraq was a friend, so they may have cut it some leeway, but N.Korea and Iran have never been "True Friends" of the U.S.

In the end it's much better just to keep the peace than to jump in and shake everyone up so much there fingers are on respective red buttons.

It is a bit of a calculated risk.

[Fleet 500]

It is dangerous to leave them alone, but isn't it more dangerous to provoke them with veiled threats and "Axis of Evil" Lists?

And i'm sure the U.S. has been negotiating with N.Korea and Iran for much longer than it has Iraq, remember Iraq was a friend, so they may have cut it some leeway, but N.Korea and Iran have never been "True Friends" of the U.S.

In the end it's much better just to keep the peace than to jump in and shake everyone up so much there fingers are on respective red buttons.

It is a bit of a calculated risk.
You're forgetting that you can't reason with dictators. Even if they weren't "provoked," they would still want to take over the world if given a chance. For instance, Kim Jong is a nutcase.

I have no idea how long negotiating has been going on with those two countries. But it hasn't come to the point where action should be taken. For instance, Iraq isn't torturing their own people or paying the family of homocide bombers $25,000 like Saddam was doing.

"Keeping the peace," that's called pacifism and historically it doesn't work. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

[Fleet 500]

The sooner Iraq can operate freely (Albeit the U.S. Interpretation of Freedom) The better. but then that frees the american army up for a new attack on somewhere......
How interesting that you can see into the future. What country will the U.S. attack next? ;)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Erm, Iran and N.Korea don't torture their people? And the pope is the most healthy person alive.

It's obviously come to that point if even the REST of the world is condeming those countries, and yet we sit there, dum de doo....... waiting for the right moment, or fear of being hit back?

And Most dictators would like to take over the world, but you'll find many are quite happy ruling their little world, it's hard work running one country with an iron fist, let alone the whole damn world.

and it's Suicide Bomber, they die too, you know.

and for the record Pacifism does work, just ask Switzerland. Although that could be called neutrility as much as Pacifism.

[Fleet 500]

Erm, Iran and N.Korea don't torture their people?

And Most dictators would like to take over the world, but you'll find many are quite happy ruling their little world, it's hard work running one country with an iron fist, let alone the whole damn world.

and it's Suicide Bomber, they die too, you know.

and for the record Pacifism does work, just ask Switzerland. Although that could be called neutrility as much as Pacifism.
I don't know if/how much there are torturing. I doubt if it equals the 1.3 million Saddam killed.

If they're happy ruling their own little world, why do they have nuclear weapons?

They are not suicide bombers, they are homicide bombers. A suicide bomber only kills himself; a homicide bomber kills others along with him or herself.

Haven't you heard what came out about Switzerland? It has been revealed that they agreed with Hitler that they would not try to stop him if he didn't invade their country. How can you say pacifism worked? Because of it, WWII started. BTW, if you don't know... Chamberlain thought pacifism would work- he even said "Peace in our time," just before WWII started!

[SlickHolden]

wow.......from a conversation about old american cars, to whether or not america should have invaded iraq.......

It's a big thing when there is more then the U.S in there;)

[SlickHolden]

There is no such thing as being free. Or free speach in this world. It's hollywood talk it's all crap in the real world.
Freedome! Do we have it ??
FreeSpeach is it real ??

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I don't know if/how much there are torturing. I doubt if it equals the 1.3 million Saddam killed.

If they're happy ruling their own little world, why do they have nuclear weapons?

They are not suicide bombers, they are homicide bombers. A suicide bomber only kills himself; a homicide bomber kills others along with him or herself.

Haven't you heard what came out about Switzerland? It has been revealed that they agreed with Hitler that they would not try to stop him if he didn't invade their country. How can you say pacifism worked? Because of it, WWII started. BTW, if you don't know... Chamberlain thought pacifism would work- he even said "Peace in our time," just before WWII started!

I'm most definately sure N.Korea has killed more than 1.3 million of their citizens.

If the U.S. is really dedicated to world peace, why do they have nuclear weapons?

They are suicide bombers because they take themselves out as they take others out. It's like saying the pilot is to blame for a plane crash, regardless of what actually happened.

I have also heard about Pope Pius the Whatever number making a similar deal with Mr.Hitler, so when was Switzerland ever under attack directly, all sides agree it to be neutral.

I know more about the Causes of WW2 than you think. Just after WW1, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, which in essence, laid the entire blame of the war, including the Allies actions, onto Germany, and demanded they paid reparations for this war "They" had caused. In paying this debt back, Germany went flat broke, and many of it's citizens starved, not helped by the blockade of ports and other entry points by the Brits and Allies well into the 1920's. The League of nations was formed to make sure nothing like this would happen again, but stupidly, the other side of the war, Germany and the Central Powers, were never admitted. Germany is a proud country, and they did not like this at all, thus allowing a Mr.Hitler to gain power in 1933.

Passive resistance has worked before, ever heard of a Mr. Ghandi?

[Fleet 500]

I'm most definately sure N.Korea has killed more than 1.3 million of their citizens.

If the U.S. is really dedicated to world peace, why do they have nuclear weapons?

They are suicide bombers because they take themselves out as they take others out. It's like saying the pilot is to blame for a plane crash, regardless of what actually happened.

I have also heard about Pope Pius the Whatever number making a similar deal with Mr.Hitler, so when was Switzerland ever under attack directly, all sides agree it to be neutral.

I know more about the Causes of WW2 than you think. Just after WW1, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, which in essence, laid the entire blame of the war, including the Allies actions, onto Germany, and demanded they paid reparations for this war "They" had caused. In paying this debt back, Germany went flat broke, and many of it's citizens starved, not helped by the blockade of ports and other entry points by the Brits and Allies well into the 1920's. The League of nations was formed to make sure nothing like this would happen again, but stupidly, the other side of the war, Germany and the Central Powers, were never admitted. Germany is a proud country, and they did not like this at all, thus allowing a Mr.Hitler to gain power in 1933.

Passive resistance has worked before, ever heard of a Mr. Ghandi?
Do you have any statistics on how many citizens N. Korea has killed?

The U.S. has nuclear weapons for self defense. Be glad we had them in 1945. If not, an invasion of Japan would have been necessary meaning another estimated 500,000 to 800,000 American soldiers would have been killed invading Japan.

Where did you get the idea that if someone blows himself up and kills others with him, it's "suicide?" Suicide means killing only yourself. Those nuts in the Middle East are, legally speaking, murderers because they have killed one or more people in addition to themselves. They are homicide bombers. They are suicide bombers if they kill only themselves. If they kill others, they are guilty of murder (homicide). If a pilot crashes the plane on purpose, then he is guilty of homicide, too.

The fact that Switzerland was never invaded but all the countries around were proved that pacifism didn't work.

I agree... the Treaty of Versailles was not effective. However, because Germany was broke did not give them the right to invade one country after another, murder millions of people (especially Jews) and have concentration camps. The U.S. was also going through a hard time during the '30s depression, but never would invade other countries to help the economy and for more power.

The pacifist approach may appeared more civilized, but going by history, its efforts to avoid bloodshed usually lead to even greater bloodshed. Pacifism rarely leads to peace and never to freedom or security. The terrorists (and their sponsors) have no intention of a peaceful coexistence with America.

[Matra et Alpine]

Those nuts in the Middle East are, legally speaking, murderers because they have killed one or more people in addition to themselves.
Agreed and so was the guy who blew up the FBI building - and no ME links.
It's not a nation or region who do these acts, it's people. DANGEROUS people, true :(
they are guilty of murder (homicide)
For sure and as murderers they should be arrested and tried.
You CANNOT go to war because of these acts by indivduals !!
The fact that Switzerland was never invaded but all the countries around were proved that pacifism didn't work.[?QUOTE]
You're confusing Switserland being pacifist and the rest of the world being pacifits. I also think you confuse pacifism and obeying international law ?
[QUOTE]The U.S. was also going through a hard time during the '30s depression, but never would invade other countries to help the economy and for more power.
But America hadn't lost land it had claims on since the 17c.
America didn't have a restrictive control on their right to manufacture and act.
And America had a leader at the time who was a great visionary on what a great nation can achieve through public works and not private gains. Germany had a scheming control freak :(
The pacifist approach may appeared more civilized, but going by history, it efforts to avoid bloodshed usually lead to even greater bloodshed. Pacifism rarely leads to peace and never to freedom or security. The terrorists (and their sponsors) have no intention of a peaceful coexistence with America.
You shoiudl read more on the surrender of the British Empire to realise how it IS possible to negotiate and empower a people. The reason the British Commonwealth still survices is directly back to the "skill" in waking up to realise that it was NOT appropraite to try to control those who saught personal and political freedom. Sorry for every Chemberlain holding his piece of paper there are also thousands of politicians holding agreements that WERE adhered to :)

[Purespeed012]

Im all for the new corvette and i like the dodge magnum, who wud of thought a stationwagon with sum awsome power.

[crisis]

Because some countries can be negotiated with and/or have pressure put on them by neighboring countries (China putting pressure on N. Korea, for instance.) As was shown from 1991 to 2003, negotiation did not work with Iraq.
North Korea are still working on nukes. Iran is now being warned that they mat get it because of the same reason. The US administration dodges the issues by swapping from chemical and bio to nukes, to war on terror. I am not one who criticises everything the US does and I am annoyed by those who take cheap shots. But the US has painted itself into a corner by its acts from Vietnam on. Selecting its wars and claiming altruistic reasons for its intervention. People then expect them to be squeaky clean. I suspect they dont care that much and are content to put out scrub fires and deal with issues as they arise. It will ensure hot debate continues as to their stature and credibility.

[crisis]

How can you say pacifism worked? Because of it, WWII started. BTW, if you don't know... Chamberlain thought pacifism would work- he even said "Peace in our time," just before WWII started!
Lets all cheer that you are wrong. If pacifism was such a loser we would have by now by returned to our base elements and living on a sheet of radioactive glass called earth. Instead we are friends with the Russians, the people once though of by some Americans (probably some still now) as the enemy of democracy and freedom. Despite the pessimism of the 50s-70s and the resignation by many that we would all die in a nuclear war the world prevailed. That should be the lesson, not Chamberlains failure. Shades of grey.

[CdocZ]

Im all for the new corvette and i like the dodge magnum, who wud of thought a stationwagon with sum awsome power.
wow.....your the only one left talking about cars. the magnum isnt exactly beautiful, but that is some ncie power. AND a neighbor of mine just got a c6 vette :D

[crisis]

Do you have any statistics on how many citizens N. Korea has killed?

The U.S. has nuclear weapons for self defense. Be glad we had them in 1945. If not, an invasion of Japan would have been necessary meaning another estimated 500,000 to 800,000 American soldiers would have been killed invading Japan.
Now you can take responsibility for further derailing this thread. Those figures are pure speculation as you stated. The US government have done a brilliant job of brainwashing many Americans into thinking that the nuclear attack on the two Japanese cities was justified.

"
Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939

The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.


FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT"

Then the US drops the most lethal and brutal bomb ever used in the history of the world, twice.




I agree... the Treaty of Versailles was not effective. However, because Germany was broke did not give them the right to invade one country after another, murder millions of people (especially Jews) and have concentration camps. The U.S. was also going through a hard time during the '30s depression, but never would invade other countries to help the economy and for more power.
It was the policy of unconditional surrender and the humiliation forced on Bermany that not only caused the economic situation but the resentment that enabled Hitler to unite the German people. What a contrast to the way Germany and Japan were treated after WW2.

[Fleet 500]

Now you can take responsibility for further derailing this thread. Those figures are pure speculation as you stated. The US government have done a brilliant job of brainwashing many Americans into thinking that the nuclear attack on the two Japanese cities was justified.

"
Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939

The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939


It was the policy of unconditional surrender and the humiliation forced on Germany that not only caused the economic situation but the resentment that enabled Hitler to unite the German people. What a contrast to the way Germany and Japan were treated after WW2.
And what happened after dropping the most lethal bombs in history? Japan surrendered!
What "brainwashing?" Dropping those two nuclear bombs ended WWII and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. (Including, possibly, my dad who was in a rest and relaxation camp and going to be one of those to begin invading Japan in Nov., 1945 if the bombs did not end the war.)
The U.S. ended the war with Japan then rebuilt that country (which took 7 years).

BTW, Pres. Roosevelt was too liberal a president.

Perhaps if Germany didn't participate in WWI, they would not have been "humilated" afterwards? Germany's record in world history is not to be envied.

So don't try laying any blame on the U.S. We've lost hundreds of thousands in wars (292,131 battle deaths for WWII alone), but we've rebuilt countries who months before were killing our soldiers. Add to that the fact that the U.S. gives more in foreign aid (money, food, military help) than any all other countries in the world *combined*.
I heard some dry (but accurate) humor a few days ago about Germany and today's current events... "Germany finally found a country they don't want to invade!" (Iraq.)

[Fleet 500]

North Korea are still working on nukes. Iran is now being warned that they mat get it because of the same reason. The US administration dodges the issues by swapping from chemical and bio to nukes, to war on terror
They are not "dodging" issues.
Everyone knows that terrorism is a real threat.
Iraq has used WMD in the past (against Iran and to "test" on their own people).
This administration is doing one two things:
Ignore it or try to eliminate the threat.

[crisis]

And what happened after dropping the most lethal bombs in history? Japan surrendered!
What "brainwashing?" Dropping those two nuclear bombs ended WWII and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. (Including, possibly, my dad who was in a rest and relaxation camp and going to be one of those to begin invading Japan in Nov., 1945 if the bombs did not end the war.)
The U.S. ended the war with Japan then rebuilt that country (which took 7 years).

The brainwashing that leads youto believe dropping it save hundreds of thousand of lives. No one knows if Japan would have had to be invaded. They may have surrendered and in fact talks were proceeding through parties in Russia to that end a few weeks before the bombs were dropped. By the way the second was going to be dropped anyway whether Japan surrendered or not. The US had these ready and were going to test them.


BTW, Pres. Roosevelt was too liberal a president.
Careful with the use of that word liberal. It exposes your predjudices.
FDR possibly caused the war in Germany to go longer than neccessary as he was a stickler for unconditional surrender. When German Generals in Italy contacted OSS and offered to assist them overthrow Hitler he refused.

Perhaps if Germany didn't participate in WWI, they would not have been "humilated" afterwards? Germany's record in world history is not to be envied.
Im not saying it is. I am saying it was the reason Germans followed Hitler to war when the depression in the US did not make them do the same thing. Two completely different sets of circumstances.

So don't try laying any blame on the U.S. We've lost hundreds of thousands in wars (292,131 battle deaths for WWII alone), but we've rebuilt countries who months before were killing our soldiers. Add to that the fact that the U.S. gives more in foreign aid (money, food, military help) than any all other countries in the world *combined*.
I heard some dry (but accurate) humor a few days ago about Germany and today's current events... "Germany finally found a country they don't want to invade!" (Iraq.)
Get of your blind patriotic high horse. Where have I layed blame on the US and what for? The countries you rebuilt you rebuilt in your image. Kind of insurance against them becoming communist etc. That is not to say the US was not to be commended but it was not all in the name of altruism. Shades of grey. Germanies two modern forays into world conflict reflected two different things. WW1 was colonialism that many European countries were guilty of. WW2 an opportunistic dictator who took advantage of social and economic circumstances. Something like the world is against us, lets unite and be strong, we can show them...

[Fleet 500]

The brainwashing that leads youto believe dropping it save hundreds of thousand of lives. No one knows if Japan would have had to be invaded. They may have surrendered and in fact talks were proceeding through parties in Russia to that end a few weeks before the bombs were dropped. By the way the second was going to be dropped anyway whether Japan surrendered or not. The US had these ready and were going to test them.

Im not saying it is. I am saying it was the reason Germans followed Hitler to war when the depression in the US did not make them do the same thing. Two completely different sets of circumstances.

Get of your blind patriotic high horse. Where have I layed blame on the US and what for? The countries you rebuilt you rebuilt in your image. Kind of insurance against them becoming communist etc. That is not to say the US was not to be commended but it was not all in the name of altruism. Shades of grey. Germanies two modern forays into world conflict reflected two different things. WW1 was colonialism that many European countries were guilty of. WW2 an opportunistic dictator who took advantage of social and economic circumstances. Something like the world is against us, lets unite and be strong, we can show them...
No "brainwashing." It did save lives. There were some Japanese officials who wanted to surrender, but most didn't want to. All indications showed that it would have taken a land invasion because Japan was not the kind of enemy who would quit easily- they had to be fought down to the last man in Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal and other Pacific Islands. They would not surrender.
Those bombs wouldn't have had to been dropped at all if Japan behaved like a civilized nation. And if you think they were "civilized," read about the Battan Death March.

There is no "excuse" for what Germany/Hitler did. Setting out to eliminate Jews and conquer the world is no excuse for anything.

Of course we rebuild countries in our image. (A democrat-republic.) Do you think Japan's economy would be so good today if it wasn't that kind of government?
If you weren't laying blame, why did you post that quote from Rossevelt?

In conclusion, Germany's (and Japan's) 20th century history is nothing to praise (for whatever reason they did it for).

BTW, there is a question I like to ask when this type of subject comes up... where would the world be today if there was no U.S.A.? Japan and Germany probably controlling the world.

[Fleet 500]

So they traded.
Trade is by private companies.
GOVERNMENTS did not "trade" and it's a deliberate twist by neo-conservatists and right-wing-loonies to suggest otherwise.
Let's see, who might have a better understanding of this - a Eureopan who reads and understands Eureopan reports or and American who watches CNN and NBC ?
And you need to realise how much trade Americn compaies were doing also !!
Clearly the Ollie North point was missed on you. Even if a nation DID trade, Colonel North si now an American hero - a man who traded with Iran adn the Contra rebels with governmetn backing. See you can't play dirty and then try to act innocent if soeone else does it ( alledgedly ). THINK ABOUT IT :(

Russia did a LOT more than "trade" with Iraq...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81917,00.html

Not a good "ally" are they? Think about THAT.

[crisis]

No "brainwashing." It did save lives. There were some Japanese officials who wanted to surrender, but most didn't want to. All indications showed that it would have taken a land invasion because Japan was not the kind of enemy who would quit easily- they had to be fought down to the last man in Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal and other Pacific Islands. They would not surrender.
By your own words it was an estimated figure that was projected as the loss of life with contiued fighting. Certainly more would have died but it is impossible to put "hundreds of thousands" as a hard number. If they foresaw total defeat they would have surrendered in much the same way they actually did when they were nuked. So it proves they would surrender. Again the myth that "the Japanese fought to the last man" helps support the actions of the US government with regards to the bombing.

Those bombs wouldn't have had to been dropped at all if Japan behaved like a civilized nation. And if you think they were "civilized," read about the Battan Death March.
The Japanese civillians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not behaving in an uncivilized manner. I have no wish to defend the actions of the Japanese militarys barbaric acts and my wifes grandfather suffered at their hands. This has no baring on the decision to drop two atomic bombs in a matter of weeks on Japanese cities.
There is no "excuse" for what Germany/Hitler did. Setting out to eliminate Jews and conquer the world is no excuse for anything.
I have not set out to excuse what Hitler and Germany did. I pointed out a reason why they may have done it. The general population of Germany would not have known what Hitler had in mind for the Jews at the start of his campaign much less ever imagined what went on in concentration camps (which they also would not have known about). Likewise they would not have all agreed with him but were similarly oppresed if they disagreed.

Of course we rebuild countries in our image. (A democrat-republic.) Do you think Japan's economy would be so good today if it wasn't that kind of government?
Democratic Republics have many problems. A genuinely altruistic victor would allow a situation where the people of the conquered nation could establish their own style of government. That is actually a true democratic process. And no, the Japanese economy and in fact yours and ours and many others would not be as good in general terms (even if theirs is up the sh!t at the moment).

If you weren't laying blame, why did you post that quote from Rossevelt?
Because he was one of your reverred presidents and he made a strong comment about bombing civillians which his/your country turned around and did in a fashion that has never been equalled in history. You told me not to lay blame on the US based on these comments

And what happened after dropping the most lethal bombs in history? Japan surrendered!
What "brainwashing?" Dropping those two nuclear bombs ended WWII and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. (Including, possibly, my dad who was in a rest and relaxation camp and going to be one of those to begin invading Japan in Nov., 1945 if the bombs did not end the war.)
The U.S. ended the war with Japan then rebuilt that country (which took 7 years).

BTW, Pres. Roosevelt was too liberal a president.

Perhaps if Germany didn't participate in WWI, they would not have been "humilated" afterwards? Germany's record in world history is not to be envied.
I dont see how that relates to dropping nuclear bombs on civillians twice.

In conclusion, Germany's (and Japan's) 20th century history is nothing to praise (for whatever reason they did it for).
Agreed. I havent and wouldnt praise their actions with regard to the wars they were involved in.

BTW, there is a question I like to ask when this type of subject comes up... where would the world be today if there was no U.S.A.? Japan and Germany probably controlling the world.
Unlikely. The Japanese had been fighting their neighbours for years and were still stuck on theri little island. Russia could and most probably would have defeated Germany single handed even without Britain and its other allies.
Hey I like American and plenty of Americans. I would rather be on their side than hundreds of others. I dont blindly support everything they do however.

[crisis]

Russia did a LOT more than "trade" with Iraq...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81917,00.html

Not a good "ally" are they? Think about THAT.
Anything from FOX must be viewed with scepticism.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Methinks it would be a little bit obvious that japan would surrender after well over 300,000 of it's civilian and military population incinerated. You guys might of too.

Japans economy had a start from the U.S., but it had to struggle it's way until the 70's, when it's cheap things began to make sense. they developed into major super-brands and companies and survived the biggest economy slump in Asias history with flying colours.

And as a word of advice, anything remotely related to Fox News will be viewed with utter derision. Never quote them, because your only cheapening your argument.

to think Germany and Japans actions during the second world war as fair or in any way good is foolish, but we must realise that the Allies were not scot-free themselves.

It's good to have arguments like this, but your shifting topics left right and centre (Center, if it helps.) We need to focus. Find me one person who genuinely admires or thinks the actions of Germany and Japan were right, and we'll argue the issue, until then, we're on the same page. Mostly.

[crisis]

They are not suicide bombers, they are homicide bombers. A suicide bomber only kills himself; a homicide bomber kills others along with him or herself.

Get a lot of your stuff rom FOX then?

Larry Johnson Former Fox News Contributor
" The edict came down apparently to stop referring to suicide bombings in Israel as suicide bombings, to call them homicide bombings. I thought that was stupid and I continued to call them suicide bombings because every bombing that kills someone is a homicide bombing."

[Fleet 500]

Anything from FOX must be viewed with scepticism.
I knew it! I just knew it! Anything from FOX can't be believed, right? Well, what about CBS/Dan Rather with those forged documents? FOX is a lot more credible than CBS (or ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN).

If you had read that article carefully, you would have seen that FOX *reported* a Washington Post article! I don't believe you!
So, if you don't believe the article (why not? Do you actually trust Russia? LOL), criticize the Washington Post, NOT FOX news.

[Fleet 500]

Get a lot of your stuff rom FOX then?

Larry Johnson Former Fox News Contributor
" The edict came down apparently to stop referring to suicide bombings in Israel as suicide bombings, to call them homicide bombings. I thought that was stupid and I continued to call them suicide bombings because every bombing that kills someone is a homicide bombing."
Thanks for posting that. I've never seen it. He is right.

No, I get some stuff from the Washington Post. See my other post!

[Fleet 500]

And as a word of advice, anything remotely related to Fox News will be viewed with utter derision. Never quote them, because your only cheapening your argument.

Why? Has there been proof that they are inaccurate? Or, is it because they don't happen to be a leftist news outlet they can't be believed?
Fox is a much-needed new station. Since there are all of those news outlets out there that obviously lean to the left (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the main newspapers from Denver and San Francisco, etc) I think it's only fair there be at least ONE that is non-liberal. Or do you think we should all get our news from only left-wing outlets?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Fox has been proven, on many occasions, to be unfair, unbalanced and very liberal (light, not the political affiliation) with the truth. obviously you've never seen Outfoxed.

I think it would be fairer if we got our news from wherever we choose, and feel free to watch Fox, but if you use it as proof, then you're treading a fine line with us "Liberals" who do not share your beliefs. I don't expect you to swallow everything i tell you, and i won't swallow everything you tell me.

How is the BBC, Sky, CNN or any other network biased in any way, shape or form? because they don't tell you the news the way you want it to be told?

And i do trust Russia, at least they can't do anything too bad, unlike a certain guy with Global aspirations. Obviously someones living a wee bit in the past.

You've once again managed to shift the issue by placing Red Herrings into the argument. stick to one point that you can actually argue, or don't bother.

[Coventrysucks]

Fox? Accurate?

Lol.

[Fleet 500]

By your own words it was an estimated figure that was projected as the loss of life with contiued fighting. Certainly more would have died but it is impossible to put "hundreds of thousands" as a hard number. If they foresaw total defeat they would have surrendered in much the same way they actually did when they were nuked. So it proves they would surrender. Again the myth that "the Japanese fought to the last man" helps support the actions of the US government with regards to the bombing.


The Japanese civillians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not behaving in an uncivilized manner. I have no wish to defend the actions of the Japanese militarys barbaric acts and my wifes grandfather suffered at their hands. This has no baring on the decision to drop two atomic bombs in a matter of weeks on Japanese cities.

Because he was one of your reverred presidents and he made a strong comment about bombing civillians which his/your country turned around and did in a fashion that has never been equalled in history. You told me not to lay blame on the US based on these comments

Unlikely. The Japanese had been fighting their neighbours for years and were still stuck on theri little island. Russia could and most probably would have defeated Germany single handed even without Britain and its other allies.
Hey I like American and plenty of Americans. I would rather be on their side than hundreds of others. I dont blindly support everything they do however.
You certainly think there are a lot of "myths" out there! In this case, you are wrong. On the island of Iwo Jima (and other Pacific islands) the U.S. marines had to use flamethrowers to eliminate the Japanese from the caves because they would not surrender (in direct contrast to what you claim). I know this because of the books I have read about WWII (quite a few books). Again, as I said, many Japanese officials would not have surrendered until their major cities fell. And they of course would have fought very hard against a direct invasion of their homeland. You may have thought we should have "waited" for Japan to surrender, but the hundreds of veterans serving in that area would disagree. (Many of them would not have been coming home.)

The Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not behaving in an uncivilized manner, but their government was. That was the problem. A government intent on taking over the far east. Those two bombs dropped in a matter of weeks ended the war. A fact. Saving hundreds of thousands of U.S. and Japanese lives (including the civilians you keep mentioning). Another fact.

Roosevelt didn't start the war; the other side did. If there was no war, Roosevelt wouldn't have had to make that speech.

It is extremely likely that Germany would have won that war. The Russians did not have the weapons to do an invasion of France (like D-Day). German Gen. Rommel said when he saw the thousands of troops in ships heading to and landing at Normandy, "We have lost the war." That was Dec. 6, 1944, btw.

Where do you get your history?!? The Japanese were not stuck on their little island! They had invaded island after island. Dozens of them. And the whole country of the Philippines. Read a history book, will you? It took years (late 1941 to 1945) for them to be wiped out- one bloody island after another. A slow progress north to Japan. The Japanese army resisting all the way.

Before the U.S. entered the war, we had been supplying Britain with war material (the lend-lease act). This, too, may have helped prevent Germany from successfully invading that island nation.
As I said, read some books on the Pacific Theater during WWII and get back to me. ;)

[Fleet 500]

Fox? Accurate?

Lol.
Proof?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

You certainly think there are a lot of "myths" out there! In this case, you are wrong. On the island of Iwo Jima (and other Pacific islands) the U.S. marines had to use flamethrowers to eliminate the Japanese from the caves because they would not surrender (in direct contrast to what you claim). I know this because of the books I have read about WWII (quite a few books). Again, as I said, many Japanese officials would not have surrendered until their major cities fell. And they of course would have fought very hard against a direct invasion of their homeland.

Methinks using Flamethrowers was a bit harsh, and even the terminology (Eliminating) shows the utter lack of Humanity shown to the Japanese by the Americans. And reading a few books does not make you an expert.

The Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not behaving in an uncivilized manner, but their government was. That was the problem. A government intent on taking over the far east. Those two bombs dropped in a matter of weeks ended the war. A fact. Saving hundreds of thousands of U.S. and Japanese lives (including the civilians you keep mentioning).

It's the old conundrum, save a few million lives at the cost of a few hundred thousand. America did not know the effects of it's new bomb, they only knew it made everything around it disappear. It might have ended the war, but making a bigger bomb does not make you the better side.

Roosevelt didn't start the war; the other side did. If there was no war, Roosevelt wouldn't have had to make that speech.

I applaud Americas stance on this issue, they did not enter the war until they were personally attacked. They might have helped the english, but not to a full scale until they were attacked. What happened? Now we have pre-emptive strikes!It is extremely likely that Germany would have won that war. The Russians did not have the weapons to do an invasion of France (like D-Day). German Gen. Rommel said when he saw the thousands of troops in ships heading to and landing at Normandy, "We have lost the war." That was Dec. 6, 1944, btw.

And Britain had managed to defend herself pretty well considering. Being an island certainly helped.

Where do you get your history?!? The Japanese were not stuck on their little island! They had invaded island after island. Dozens of them. And the whole country of the Philippines. Read a history book, will you? It took years (late 1941 to 1945) for them to be wiped out- one bloody island after another. A slow progress north to Japan. The Japanese army resisting all the way.

Resistance or following orders? And where do you get your history? they did invade islands, and attacked Australia personally, but i don't see where in Crisis' comment he said they were confined to their "Small Island" of around 250 Million people......

Before the U.S. entered the war, we had been supplying Britain with war material (the lend-lease act). This, too, may have helped prevent Germany from successfully invading that island nation.
As I said, read some books on the Pacific Theater during WWII and get back to me. ;)

It's very nice to think it was all america who saved Britain from the end, they helped, but your making dim light of the english peoples struggle for their own freedom, if anything they helped themselves stay free, but in order to free the rest of europe and Asia they needed help.

I like the U.S. actions in WW2 because many of them were only retaliatory, rather than pre emptive, save for the last Few weeks of the war and the whole Atomic bomb issue. Maybe a generation of military strategists grew up witht he knowledge that hitting them first saves a hell of a lot of struggle. the only problem is that you have to be entirely sure of what you are doing.

Thats my 2 cents.

[Fleet 500]

Fox has been proven, on many occasions, to be unfair, unbalanced and very liberal (light, not the political affiliation) with the truth. obviously you've never seen Outfoxed.

I think it would be fairer if we got our news from wherever we choose, and feel free to watch Fox, but if you use it as proof, then you're treading a fine line with us "Liberals" who do not share your beliefs. I don't expect you to swallow everything i tell you, and i won't swallow everything you tell me.

How is the BBC, Sky, CNN or any other network biased in any way, shape or form? because they don't tell you the news the way you want it to be told?

And i do trust Russia, at least they can't do anything too bad, unlike a certain guy with Global aspirations. Obviously someones living a wee bit in the past.

You've once again managed to shift the issue by placing Red Herrings into the argument. stick to one point that you can actually argue, or don't bother.
Please post a link showing how Fox has been "unfair and unbalanced." Again, the original article found on Fox is from the Washington Post. Didn't you read that the first time I posted it?

How are the other networks biased? One of these "wonderful, accurate" news outlets said, during the second week of the Iraq war, that it was a "disaster" for the U.S. and coalition troops. In fact, it was the fastest invasion of another country in history! Another non-Fox news type outlet claimed that during the northward progression towards Baghdad that the troops were stalled because of "heavy fighting." In actuality, they were just waiting for reenforcements!

Going by your comments, I am not surprised at all that you trust Russia!

Once again, you've showed your ignorance in saying that only left-leaning news outlets can be believed.

[Fleet 500]

Thats my 2 cents.
So, you think flamethowers is a bit harsh! It's a WAR for goodness sakes. We could have said, "Aww, come on out, Japanese. We don't want to hurt you. Play nice." I don't think that would have been very effective. Wars are harsh. Send for a refund! :D

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well Jeez, flame throwing people is always harsh, it's like hitting them with Napalm, i'll never approve of it.

War may be hell, but thats no excuse to abandon any shred of decency or humanity just to achieve your end. I guess thats how they did it: to many GI's, the Japanese weren't human.

Read this also for Germans/Jews.

[Fleet 500]

Mr. Rainbows:
It was not a pre-emptive war. It was resuming hostilities because Iraq broke the cease-fire agreement.

Resistance or following orders... what's the difference? They were still killing American soldiers. We fought back- that's what you do in a war.

No, reading books does not make someone an expert, but at least I know what I'm talking about- you sure don't!

[Fleet 500]

Well Jeez, flame throwing people is always harsh, it's like hitting them with Napalm, i'll never approve of it.

War may be hell, but thats no excuse to abandon any shred of decency or humanity just to achieve your end. I guess thats how they did it: to many GI's, the Japanese weren't human.
What would you do if you were there and being fired at?
What is the difference if a Japanese soldier was killed by a bullet or by a flamethrower?

I assume you didn't know about the use of flamethrowers... as I said, read a few books about the war in the Pacific Theater.

[Matra et Alpine]

..... an opportunistic dictator who took advantage of social and economic circumstances. Something like the world is against us, lets unite and be strong, we can show them...
hmmm, sounds so like today :(

[Matra et Alpine]

Russia did a LOT more than "trade" with Iraq...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81917,00.html

Not a good "ally" are they? Think about THAT.
:) Quoting FOX News doesn't do anyone's rep any good :)

BUT we already agreed this was going on.
You turned it inot a NATION doing something, we all agreed that it was known that COMPANIES were doing thigs. AND you need to realise AMERICAN companies were doing it too.

Now, the issue with the government not being able to control it, you need to read on modern Russian history. Only now are theey starting to roll back the corruptoin of crime-controlled companies and politicians. They had a MAJOR revolution, not unexpected they'd have problems trying to get this on an even keel.

Hell America's revolution was over 200 years ago and todays goverenment couldn't control ENRON and it's financial shenanigans OR the oil companies in IRAQ. Hell he even signed an executive order GUARANTEEING them immunity -President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13303, which appears to give immunity from any judicial process to every entity with direct or indirect interests in Iraqi petroleum and related products.
Maybe a search on FOX News might enlighten you on that exce order - or thre again, IT"S FOX - probably not :)

So don't blacken the Russian nation with the actions of some of it's companies that the government had trouble identifiying and controlling - and armed Uzi is an amazing persuader on the streets :(

[Matra et Alpine]

BTW, there is a question I like to ask when this type of subject comes up... where would the world be today if there was no U.S.A.? Japan and Germany probably controlling the world.
it would likely be the British Empire as it would not have been taken down by underhanded financial acts in the Indes. You would be living in a green and pleasant colonial land :)

AMAZING arrogance to come up with that statement Fleet.

JUST as arrogant as any Brits who believe the above one from me :)

Nations rise and fall in the vagaries of financial and natural undulations.
It could be South Africa for all we know ( diamonds and gold ) or more likely Australia - the one with the most Uranium to be mined :)

[Matra et Alpine]

BBC. Or do you think we should all get our news from only left-wing outlets?
showing excessive ignorance of world news Fleet :)

The BBC is constituted to be balanced.
THAT is why over the years it is often pulled into courts by the ruling governmenet for NOT towing the "party line".

Right wing call it leftist, left wing call it right and Liberals ( true political liberesla not the American L-word ) call it unfair !!

The BEST indication of having a fair and balanced outlet.
Sometimes payign for a TV station with an independantly collected 'fee' IS better than relying on government handouts or advertising.

[Matra et Alpine]

You certainly think there are a lot of "myths" out there!
You too, Fleet, (like Normandy !!)
You have a VERY biased input showing the American POV.

So little trouble do men take in the search after truth, so readily do they accept whatever comes first to hand.

Thucidides, The Peloponnesian WarAS the

It is the victor who rewrites the history of the war !!

The Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not behaving in an uncivilized manner, but their government was.
I tihnk you missed the poitn of the quatation from Roosevelt who said an act against a people was deplorable. THEN did it :( Just as the allies sanctioned carpet fire bombing of population centres in Germany. Deplorable !! That it reduced the length of the war was a plus, but do we really stand proud as a people for those actiosn ? NO.
I've stood in Frankfurt, Hamburg, Dresden and spoken to German colleagues and their familes. It's quite unsettling. I have equally spoken with family here who lost their famile and friends . There can be NO rejoice or balancing of death and mutiliation. It si obsence and unwirthy of man :(
A fact. Saving hundreds of thousands of U.S. and Japanese lives (including the civilians you keep mentioning). Another fact.
Fleet, you're now starting to ignore points OTHER people make to you.
It was bad enough when it was only me :)
It is NOT a fact that it saved lives, it is CONJECTURE there is a difference.
Roosevelt didn't start the war; the other side did. If there was no war, Roosevelt wouldn't have had to make that speech.
There already WAS a war, FLeet, you guys were just hiding from it and acting pacifist. It's easy to do when you're not under attack. BUT don't then come out nearly 70 years later and suggest US actions were justified or not !!!
It is extremely likely that Germany would have won that war.
huh ?
You really DO need to go back and read some REAL history books Fleet. Because where you're getting these "myths" is beyond me.
German Gen. Rommel said when he saw the thousands of troops in ships heading to and landing at Normandy, "We have lost the war." That was Dec. 6, 1944, btw.
Because so many German tropps were spread on the Eastern fornt and incurring HUGE losses by then and his forces were NOT in the correct place having been fooled into thinking it was coming further North. These all played a part, did you INTEND to make it soudn as if it was the sheer numbers ??
You made this EXACT SAME ERROR in your attampts to talk earlier on the war. You take one thing in isolation and try to make assupmtions from it.

Where do you get your history?!? The Japanese were not stuck on their little island! They had invaded island after island. Dozens of them. And the whole country of the Philippines. Read a history book, will you? It took years (late 1941 to 1945) for them to be wiped out- one bloody island after another. A slow progress north to Japan. The Japanese army resisting all the way.

Before the U.S. entered the war, we had been supplying Britain with war material (the lend-lease act).
Read more and understand that was NOT an act of kindness. It had to be DRAGGED out of the American congress adn then it was done at such financial cost that it was KNOWN it woudl destroy the British Empire as a world power. Pleae dont' tart it up as same egalitarian act. We'll nto allow THAT attempted re-write.
This, too, may have helped prevent Germany from successfully invading that island nation.
It IS an interesting conjecture by MANY historians and military specialists over the decades on whether Britain coudl EVER be taken. The general consensus is that the South East and some of the Eastern seabord coudl be but that Germany did not possess the men or materials any longer to hold any significant part of it. At the TIME Germany did not believe it coudl manage it and despite making plans numerous times all ended with the realisation of the folly if it.
As I said, read some books on the Pacific Theater during WWII and get back to me. ;)
Read some books NOT (re)written by American bias and do likewise, Fleet :)
There are views that Japan MAY have surrendered without the need to drop the A-bomb. THAT has already been voiced here but ignored in any follow up thinking by yourself.

[Matra et Alpine]

So, you think flamethowers is a bit harsh! It's a WAR for goodness sakes. We could have said, "Aww, come on out, Japanese. We don't want to hurt you. Play nice." I don't think that would have been very effective. Wars are harsh. Send for a refund! :D
You cited the Batan march. It is that attitude that the Japanese officers were followign through. To their culture NO soldior shoud lsurrender and to do so made them less than human.

Think of your above statemetn and put the 9/11 attack in THAT context. It doesn't fit that well. Those "fredom fighters" were a "bit harsh" too but it has a differnet impact when thought THAT way doesn't it.

BTW, I am NOT suggesting ANY support or even consideration of those acts. They were atrocious. Just to get you to think a little more laterally and realise there AER other possibilites and reasons

[Matra et Alpine]

No, reading books does not make someone an expert, but at least I know what I'm talking about- you sure don't!
No, Fleet, you KNOW what you've read.

You have no first or second hand knowledge of Eureop or Japan.
You have no first and (maybe) little second hand knowledge of the wars in those arenas.

You DO have information gleaned from reading and TV. However, you should consider IF that is biased or is selcted to be biased. In a multi cultural free society then you shoudl seek to read and watch the information OTHERS watch and discuss. It is most enlightening. I contend that you are VERY biased in the way you descrcibe events and nations. Only you can know whether you've read anything that counters that view and considered it or whether you just haven't read it.

To claim another person doesn't know waht they are talking about JUST BECAUSE they point out alternative views of the same events is a very closed way to discuss events. If you don't open your eyes and ears then you become the putty that extremists WANT people to be More readily manipulated and controlled.

[Matra et Alpine]

What would you do if you were there and being fired at?
What is the difference if a Japanese soldier was killed by a bullet or by a flamethrower?
OK, lets take that to some logical conclusions Fleet to show how extreme your view point is.
So I am shot at by one soldier and can hence justify flame-thrower on a complete section with NO opportunity for them to surrender if they wanted to. ( BTW there is FILM EVIDENCE of Japanese soldiers surrendering so lets not perpetuate the myth that they never do :) )

Anywa shot - > flamethrower.

OK, so someone shoots my family. I then chose to bomb families of theirs by driving a car full of mails and explosives into a market place and setting it off. Is THAT acceptabel ? it follows the same logic on treatment of PEOPLE.

OK, you may claim it was war. Define WAR. There is physical war, three is economic war there is propoganda war. Is only one 'war' allowed this logic ? Or all ?

OK, lets contineu, someone bombs my town because there are some terrorists I am forced to allow in. They kill dozens of my freinds and familiy. Can I now fly a plane into a building and kill many of THEIR friends and family ? Is THAT UNacceptable ? it follows the same logic you use in justifying burning the skin off of living people with no hope of a quick end.

Take these from the differnet perspectives and SOME of them can be rationallu justified. Lack of respect for individual human life. The belief that one act deserves a return act an order of magniatude greater and indiscriminate.

:(

I assume you didn't know about the use of flamethrowers... as I said, read a few books about the war in the Pacific Theater.
Well like the say the first 3 letters of assume spell A-S-S :)
not many folks don't know about flame thorwesr. MOST folks know what they did.
FEW think of the horror of being on the other end of a tank equipped with on coming towards you with NO option for surrender adn the ONLY hope to be to hide in the furthest depth of a tunnel/bunker and hope that the burning air doesn't reach you and that there is enough oxygen left after it to be able to survive. it is a horrible weapon to face and to die by.
Waken up to some of the nonsense spouted which belittles the horror of what we do to each other. Have you read any Japanese boosk on the war and the people ? It is VERY enlightening and seldom "rewritten" as they weren't origianlly published in English !!

[Matra et Alpine]

All of that leaves me with a VERY SADDENED heart and burdened mind for the future of mankind when we so easily belittle the horrors we perpetuate.
I'm leaving this thread, having once tried to bring it back to American cars we like and failed :(

[crisis]

I knew it! I just knew it! Anything from FOX can't be believed, right? Well, what about CBS/Dan Rather with those forged documents? FOX is a lot more credible than CBS (or ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN).

If you had read that article carefully, you would have seen that FOX *reported* a Washington Post article! I don't believe you!
So, if you don't believe the article (why not? Do you actually trust Russia? LOL), criticize the Washington Post, NOT FOX news.
Wow. I didnt say I didnt beleive the article. I dont think any country is above suspicion. Fox is quite overtly baised to one political persuasion as has been stated by various employees and contributors.

i.e.

Gene Kimmel Sr.
Dir. of the Public Policy & Advocacy Consumers Union.
“When you see the properties Rupert Murdoch owns around the
world, the strong, conservative point-of-view that those
properties often reflect,
it’s different than ABC or CBS or NBC. Sure, they reflect
a point-of-view but not nearly as strong or consistently
strong from one ideological perspective.”

Jon Du Pre Former Fox News Anchor–West Coast Bureau.
“We weren't necessarily, as it was told to us, a news
gathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a
point-of-view.”

Copy of Internal FOX Memo
Date: 4/28/2004 From: Moody
Let’s refer to the US marines we see in the foreground as
“sharpshooters” not snipers, which carries a negative
connotation

Bob McChesney Founder of Free Press/Author of “The Problem of the Media”
The real revolutionary breakthrough of Fox has been its
eliminative journalism. That’s the thing to understand.
What Fox News Channel has done is it’s stripped out any
notion of journalism as we’ve traditionally understood it
from its product. There is no journalism at the Fox News
Channel.

00:12:46 BILL O’REILLY COMMENTARY 3
O’REILLY: Once the war against Saddam begins we expect
every American to support our military and if they can’t do
that – to shut up.

FOX NEWS CHANNEL ANCHOR:
“ John Kerry is Jane Fonda with a Burberry scarf tied around his neck.”

JON DU PRE Former Fox News Anchor-West Coast Bureau
“Any ad lib that made the Democrats look stupid and made the Republicans look smart would get an ‘attaboy’, also a pat on the back, a wink or a nod.”

ANCHOR 1: “John Kerry has Kim Jong Il on his side. Barbra
Streisand. What could go wrong?”
ANCHOR 2: “North Korea loves John Kerry.’
ANCHOR 3: “Really?”

Peter Hart Media Analyst for FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting)
Other journalists use phrases like “some people say” or
“officials say” when they’re trying to insert anonymously
information in a story that sort of advances the storyline.
Fox does it a different way. ‘Some people say’ is Fox’s cue
that “I’m pretending to be an anchor, so I can’t say
this is my opinion, or this is Roger Ailes’ opinion but
‘some people say.’”

NEWS ANCHOR: “Some people say it would be a pretty good
choice…bring in the Hispanic vote.”

ANCHOR: “Some people say that this might undermine what the
US troops are doing there.”

ANCHOR: “Some people say John Kerry has some similarities to an earlier Massachusetts’s politician.”



This is not a credible news source.

[Fleet 500]

hmmm, sounds so like today :(
Really? Who?

[crisis]

You certainly think there are a lot of "myths" out there! In this case, you are wrong. On the island of Iwo Jima (and other Pacific islands) the U.S. marines had to use flamethrowers to eliminate the Japanese from the caves because they would not surrender (in direct contrast to what you claim). I know this because of the books I have read about WWII (quite a few books).
"The first flamethrower, in the modern sense, is usually credited to the German Richard Fiedler. He submitted evaluation models of his Flammenwerfer to the German army in 1901.
The US Marines found them especially useful in clearing Japanese trench and bunker complexes in the Pacific. In cases where the Japanese were entrenched in deep caves, the flames could not reach them but consumed the oxygen and the Japanese suffocated. "

Courtesy Wikipedia.
So the use of flame throwers was to kill enemy deep within bunkers. It enabled the Marines to clear them without having to risk goin in to the bunkers. Good idea but not initiated because the Japanese would not give up, but because it was a safer way to do it. THe picture below shows the Germans using them on someone who by your definition would never surrender. Perhaps they should have used nukes as well.


Again, as I said, many Japanese officials would not have surrendered until their major cities fell.
Again as I said that is speculation. In a book by William Casey about the OSS he states that Russia was playing an intemediary role in negotiations between the US and Japan just before the bombing.


The Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not behaving in an uncivilized manner, but their government was. That was the problem. A government intent on taking over the far east. Those two bombs dropped in a matter of weeks ended the war. A fact. Saving hundreds of thousands of U.S. and Japanese lives (including the civilians you keep mentioning). Another fact.
Sorry one fact, one assumption.

Roosevelt didn't start the war; the other side did. If there was no war, Roosevelt wouldn't have had to make that speech.
His speech was not precipitated by the war. It was a reaction to bombing civillians in cities. Are you saying that US presidents can say whatever they like in the time of war and then turn around and act in a totally contradictory way? If so its no wonder we question so many of their actions.

It is extremely likely that Germany would have won that war. The Russians did not have the weapons to do an invasion of France (like D-Day). German Gen. Rommel said when he saw the thousands of troops in ships heading to and landing at Normandy, "We have lost the war." That was Dec. 6, 1944, btw.
Russia didnt need to cross the channel. They seemed to make it into greater Europe pretty well.

Where do you get your history?!? The Japanese were not stuck on their little island! They had invaded island after island. Dozens of them. And the whole country of the Philippines. Read a history book, will you? It took years (late 1941 to 1945) for them to be wiped out- one bloody island after another. A slow progress north to Japan. The Japanese army resisting all the way.
I am talking about the wars they had previously with China etc. Certainly WW2 was different. And certainly the US played a crucial role in defeating the Japanese. If you didnt make sweeping generalisations I wouldnt question them though. :)

Before the U.S. entered the war, we had been supplying Britain with war material (the lend-lease act). This, too, may have helped prevent Germany from successfully invading that island nation.
As I said, read some books on the Pacific Theater during WWII and get back to me. ;)
I'll let Matra take that up (lend lease).

[Fleet 500]

You too, Fleet, (like Normandy !!)
You have a VERY biased input showing the American POV.

I tihnk you missed the poitn of the quatation from Roosevelt who said an act against a people was deplorable. THEN did it :( Just as the allies sanctioned carpet fire bombing of population centres in Germany. Deplorable !! That it reduced the length of the war was a plus, but do we really stand proud as a people for those actiosn ? NO.

Fleet, you're now starting to ignore points OTHER people make to you.
It was bad enough when it was only me :)
It is NOT a fact that it saved lives, it is CONJECTURE there is a difference.

huh ?

Because so many German tropps were spread on the Eastern fornt and incurring HUGE losses by then and his forces were NOT in the correct place having been fooled into thinking it was coming further North. These all played a part, did you INTEND to make it soudn as if it was the sheer numbers ??
You made this EXACT SAME ERROR in your attampts to talk earlier on the war. You take one thing in isolation and try to make assupmtions from it.


Read some books NOT (re)written by American bias and do likewise, Fleet :)
There are views that Japan MAY have surrendered without the need to drop the A-bomb. THAT has already been voiced here but ignored in any follow up thinking by yourself.
What about Normandy? Would you like to know more about it?

Talking about reading books more- that would certainly apply to you, too. (BTW, why are you responding- I wasn't talking to about all of this.)
So, you think we should have "cut back on bombings" with the result that even more allied soldiers would have been killed because it would have taken longer for the war to end.

It is a DEFINITE fact that dropping the two bombs saved lives. Because, like I said, if they weren't an invasion of Japan was planned beginning in Nov., 1945. And an invasion of that type (invading another country's homeland) would have resulted in even more casualties than D-Day or Battle of the Bulge. I assume you didn't know that Japan WAS asked to surrender BEFORE the A-bombs were dropped. They refused.

Correction- I meant Russia could not have won the war. If America did exist, do you really think Russia could have fought in Europe, N. Africa and in the Pacific Theater? No, the Russians did not have the ships, planes and war material to fight in the Pacific and in the other places at the same time.

Many of the books I've read about WWII are from the 1950s. And not "American-biased" because there were British and even German officers (and soliers) who contributed to the books.

[crisis]

hmmm, sounds so like today :(
Quite. ;)

[Fleet 500]

Wow. I didnt say I didnt beleive the article. I dont think any country is above suspicion. Fox is quite overtly baised to one political persuasion as has been stated by various employees and contributors.

i.e.

Gene Kimmel Sr.
Dir. of the Public Policy & Advocacy Consumers Union.
“When you see the properties Rupert Murdoch owns around the
world, the strong, conservative point-of-view that those
properties often reflect,
it’s different than ABC or CBS or NBC. Sure, they reflect
a point-of-view but not nearly as strong or consistently
strong from one ideological perspective.”

Jon Du Pre Former Fox News Anchor–West Coast Bureau.
“We weren't necessarily, as it was told to us, a news
gathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a
point-of-view.”

Copy of Internal FOX Memo
Date: 4/28/2004 From: Moody
Let’s refer to the US marines we see in the foreground as
“sharpshooters” not snipers, which carries a negative
connotation

Bob McChesney Founder of Free Press/Author of “The Problem of the Media”
The real revolutionary breakthrough of Fox has been its
eliminative journalism. That’s the thing to understand.
What Fox News Channel has done is it’s stripped out any
notion of journalism as we’ve traditionally understood it
from its product. There is no journalism at the Fox News
Channel.

00:12:46 BILL O’REILLY COMMENTARY 3
O’REILLY: Once the war against Saddam begins we expect
every American to support our military and if they can’t do
that – to shut up.

FOX NEWS CHANNEL ANCHOR:
“ John Kerry is Jane Fonda with a Burberry scarf tied around his neck.”

JON DU PRE Former Fox News Anchor-West Coast Bureau
“Any ad lib that made the Democrats look stupid and made the Republicans look smart would get an ‘attaboy’, also a pat on the back, a wink or a nod.”

ANCHOR 1: “John Kerry has Kim Jong Il on his side. Barbra
Streisand. What could go wrong?”
ANCHOR 2: “North Korea loves John Kerry.’
ANCHOR 3: “Really?”

Peter Hart Media Analyst for FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting)
Other journalists use phrases like “some people say” or
“officials say” when they’re trying to insert anonymously
information in a story that sort of advances the storyline.
Fox does it a different way. ‘Some people say’ is Fox’s cue
that “I’m pretending to be an anchor, so I can’t say
this is my opinion, or this is Roger Ailes’ opinion but
‘some people say.’”

NEWS ANCHOR: “Some people say it would be a pretty good
choice…bring in the Hispanic vote.”

ANCHOR: “Some people say that this might undermine what the
US troops are doing there.”

ANCHOR: “Some people say John Kerry has some similarities to an earlier Massachusetts’s politician.”

This is not a credible news source.
No, no... you don't understand. Cite in instance in which Fox News received a news story and then put their "bias" on it.

Quoting anchors is different- they have every right to give opinions. If they report false data (you know, like Dan Rather), that is something else.

Tell me... is CBS a "credible" news source! Lol.

(BTW, I guess Fox will just have to be satisfied knowing that they are blowing away CNN in the ratings.)

[Fleet 500]

"The first flamethrower, in the modern sense, is usually credited to the German Richard Fiedler. He submitted evaluation models of his Flammenwerfer to the German army in 1901.
The US Marines found them especially useful in clearing Japanese trench and bunker complexes in the Pacific. In cases where the Japanese were entrenched in deep caves, the flames could not reach them but consumed the oxygen and the Japanese suffocated. "

Again as I said that is speculation. In a book by William Casey about the OSS he states that Russia was playing an intemediary role in negotiations between the US and Japan just before the bombing.

Sorry one fact, one assumption.

His speech was not precipitated by the war. It was a reaction to bombing civillians in cities. Are you saying that US presidents can say whatever they like in the time of war and then turn around and act in a totally contradictory way?

Yes the flamethrowers were used because the Japanese were hiding in caves. Because they would not surrender. Incidentally, having "talks" with the Japanese was tried before. You see, we were having one of those "talks" just hours before Pearl Harbor was attacked. Simple conclusion- the Japanese couldn't be trusted.

Sorry, both are facts- the A-bomb ended the war. Without it an invasion of Japan was have taken place. The highest-positioned Japanese officials did not want to surrender. Remember- they didn't even surrender when threatened with the A-bomb.

That was one president. I don't think Harry Truman would have made a speech like that. Maybe if Germany and Japan behave no speeches like that will ever have to be made again.

[crisis]

No, no... you don't understand. Cite in instance in which Fox News received a new story and then put their "bias" on it.
They blur news and opinion by running the two side by side.
Jon Du Pre Former Fox News Anchor–West Coast Bureau
"We weren't necessarily, as it was told to us, a news
gathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a
point-of-view."

James Wolcott Former Staff Writer for the New Yorker/Cultural Critic for Vanity Fair
"They deliberately blur it and, I find it very hard to believe, you know, there’s no separation between Bill O’Reilly the Interviewer and Bill O’Reilly with his
Talking Points. I mean, there’s just no separation at all."

O’REILLY: "Jimmy Carter is making yet another mistake and
this time, there’s no excuse for it. And that’s the memo.
Now for the top story tonight. Another view on this."


How can you trust anything when so much is underhanded and contrived?

Quoting anchors is different- they have every right to give opinions. If they report false data (you know, like Dan Rather), that is something else.
Anchors on Australian commercial channels go to extremes to never editorialise.

Tell me... is CBS a "credible" news source! Lol.
Dont know, dont watch it. I watch, listen and read a variety of sources. I make up my point of view based on the varying views. However when a particular agency is exposed to show bias, negligence or dishonesty I would view anyhting from them with scepticism unless it was supported by material from another agency. Seems reasonable. :)

(BTW, I guess Fox will just have to be satisfied knowing that they are blowing away CNN in the ratings.)
I guess they will. Just like shows like big brother, Australian (American) idol, third rate soaps etc. They all appeal to the lowest common denominator.

GREEN DAY LYRICS

"American Idiot"

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new mania.
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind fvck America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alienation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoia.


Don't wanna be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information age of hysteria.
It's calling out to idiot America.


Sh!t do they nail it! :D

[Fleet 500]

All of that leaves me with a VERY SADDENED heart and burdened mind for the future of mankind when we so easily belittle the horrors we perpetuate.

Amazing! "The horrors we perpetuate." We? What about Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
It looks like you are one of those "Blame America" persons.
The U.S. and allies ENDED the horrors of the Nazi death camps and the Japanese torture. Go READ some books, will you? Try "A Democracy at War: America's Fight at Home and Abroad in WWII" (by William L. O'Neill) and

[CdocZ]

talk about a swamped thread..........jeeeez. other american cars that are good. last time i posted here, i dont think i had seen the saleen s7 in real life yet. HOLY CRAP ITS COOL!!!!!!!!!!

[crisis]

Yes the flamethrowers were used because the Japanese were hiding in caves. Because they would not surrender. Incidentally, having "talks" with the Japanese was tried before. You see, we were having one of those "talks" just hours before Pearl Harbor was attacked. Simple conclusion- the Japanese couldn't be trusted.
Fast forward a few years and they are getting beaten and their ally in Germany has been defeated. Now would sound like a good time to sue for peace.
Sorry, both are facts- the A-bomb ended the war. Without it an invasion of Japan was have taken place.
The highest-positioned Japanese officials did not want to surrender.
Who, I wouldbe interested in reading the transcript of these negotiations. You know , facts.

Remember- they didn't even surrender when threatened with the A-bomb.

The question is, were they given time and what were the conditions?

That was one president. I don't think Harry Truman would have made a speech like that. Maybe if Germany and Japan behave no speeches like that will ever have to be made again.
Pity if Harry Truman supported bombing cities and civillians. I thought your presidents were supposed to be representatives of the majority of Americans. Surely most Americans dont think bombing civillians is ok.
How the German and Japanese command behaved has no baring on the wishes and attitude of their general population. If you needed to drop the bomb so badly on these bad people why not bomb the Emporers palace?

[crisis]

talk about a swamped thread..........jeeeez. other american cars that are good. last time i posted here, i dont think i had seen the saleen s7 in real life yet. HOLY CRAP ITS COOL!!!!!!!!!!
Get over it. This thread is now political. Too bad, you know, so if it isnt what you want to read look elsewhere. :)

[Fleet 500]

They blur news and opinion by running the two side by side.
Jon Du Pre Former Fox News Anchor–West Coast Bureau
"We weren't necessarily, as it was told to us, a news
gathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a
point-of-view."

James Wolcott Former Staff Writer for the New Yorker/Cultural Critic for Vanity Fair
"They deliberately blur it and, I find it very hard to believe, you know, there’s no separation between Bill O’Reilly the Interviewer and Bill O’Reilly with his
Talking Points. I mean, there’s just no separation at all."

O’REILLY: "Jimmy Carter is making yet another mistake and
this time, there’s no excuse for it. And that’s the memo.
Now for the top story tonight. Another view on this."

Anchors on Australian commercial channels go to extremes to never editorialise.

Dont know, dont watch it. I watch, listen and read a variety of sources. I make up my point of view based on the varying views. However when a particular agency is exposed to show bias, negligence or dishonesty I would view anyhting from them with scepticism unless it was supported by material from another agency. Seems reasonable. :)

I guess they will. Just like shows like big brother, Australian (American) idol, third rate soaps etc. They all appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Let me ask again- is it true that only liberal, non-conservative news outlets are accurate?

O'Reilly is a COMMENTATOR. You do know what that means? Someone who ANALYZES news events. Besides, he's right- Carter did make a mistake. Now, take an actual new reporter like Sheppard Smith- he reads the news without giving his opinions.

BTW, I don't blame you for not watching CBS!

You still haven't showed me a case in which Fox received a story then distorted it before or while reporting on it.

[CdocZ]

thats why im not reading it, and im sticking to the topic. im not trying to get you back on topic, just making a single post for those who actually come to this thread about the american car discussion :p

[crisis]

Amazing! "The horrors we perpetuate." We? What about Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
It looks like you are one of those "Blame America" persons.
The U.S. and allies ENDED the horrors of the Nazi death camps and the Japanese torture. Go READ some books, will you? Try "A Democracy at War: America's Fight at Home and Abroad in WWII" (by William L. O'Neill) and
William L. O'Neill is Professor of History at Rutgers University. An authority on World War II, his numerous books include America's Fight at Home and Abroad in World War II and American High: The Years of Confidence, 1945-60.

Surely a respectable authority although his titles seem to hint at his American point of view. Does he give any factual evidence that Japan would not have surrendered without being nuked or that hundreds of thousands would have been lost without it?

[crisis]

Let me ask again- is it true that only liberal, non-conservative news outlets are accurate?
Um , no.

O'Reilly is a COMMENTATOR. You do know what that means? Someone who ANALYZES news events. Besides, he's right- Carter did make a mistake. Now, take an actual new reporter like Sheppard Smith- he reads the news without giving his opinions.

BTW, I don't blame you for not watching CBS!

You still haven't showed me a case in which Fox received a story then distorted it before or while reporting on it.

Jeff Cohen Former MSNBC/Fox News Contributor
"Media is the nervous system of a democracy. If it’s not
functioning well, the democracy can’t functioning. We’re
heading towards an election where most people are never
going to be in a room with Kerry or Bush. What they learn
about the candidates is what the media shows them or tells
them. Decides not to show, not to tell."

Its not a matter of making bold faced lies. Its showing the particular point of view you want to promote and supressing the one you dont.

Jon Du Pre Former Fox News Anchor–West Coast Bureau.
“We weren't necessarily, as it was told to us, a news
gathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a
point-of-view.”

Whos point of view? Rupert Murdochs ultimately.

Gene Kimmel Sr.Dir. of the Public Policy & Advocacy Consumers Union
"When you see the properties Rupert Murdoch owns around the
world, the strong, conservative point-of-view that those
properties often reflect, it’s different than ABC or CBS or NBC. Sure, they reflecta point-of-view but not nearly as strong or consistently
strong from one ideological perspective."

[crisis]

thats why im not reading it, and im sticking to the topic. im not trying to get you back on topic, just making a single post for those who actually come to this thread about the american car discussion :p
Im glad to see your not reading it. :confused:
What else havent you been reading lately? :p

[spi-ti-tout]

You still haven't showed me a case in which Fox received a story then distorted it before or while reporting on it.
It's widely known that they screwed up Bush's account post to make him president. And no I'm not only saying this because I watchded Farenheit 9/11.

[CdocZ]

Im glad to see your not reading it. :confused:
What else havent you been reading lately? :p
i just read something about some guy who lived near a golf course and was a huge cheney fan. cheney also happened to be on that particular golf course, and he wanted a better view of cheney. of course, this happened in texas or something, so the guy used the scope on his .328 remmington rifle. of course, the secret service just LOVED this, and barged into his house and took him into custody. retarded rednecks :p
thats the kind of politics i like, not the kind where 2 people argue about something a little late to change.

[Fleet 500]

Who, I wouldbe interested in reading the transcript of these negotiations. You know , facts.

The question is, were they given time and what were the conditions?

Pity if Harry Truman supported bombing cities and civillians. I thought your presidents were supposed to be representatives of the majority of Americans. Surely most Americans dont think bombing civillians is ok.
How the German and Japanese command behaved has no baring on the wishes and attitude of their general population. If you needed to drop the bomb so badly on these bad people why not bomb the Emporers palace?
I'll look for transcripts.

Of course they were given time. We were not the bad guys you know. Are you on their side?
Our presidents have the extremely difficult task of trying to end (two) world wars. It's really easy to sit back in a chair and criticize.
Really? How the German and Japanese command behaved has no barring? I suggest you talk to some Holocast survivors. I'm sure the palace had underground living areas in which bombs would not affect.

[crisis]

i just read something about some guy who lived near a golf course and was a huge cheney fan. cheney also happened to be on that particular golf course, and he wanted a better view of cheney. of course, this happened in texas or something, so the guy used the scope on his .328 remmington rifle. of course, the secret service just LOVED this, and barged into his house and took him into custody. retarded rednecks :p
thats the kind of politics i like, not the kind where 2 people argue about something a little late to change.
Im sure he is a responsible licenced gun owner. Oh no, there I go. :D

[Matra et Alpine]

It is a DEFINITE fact that dropping the two bombs saved lives.
NO IT IS NOT.
It is conjecture, It IS highly likely that it saved lives.
To say anything else is to lie.
I assume you didn't know that Japan WAS asked to surrender BEFORE the A-bombs were dropped.
you again take a word and make an ASS out of U, not ME :)
Many of the books I've read about WWII are from the 1950s. And not "American-biased" because there were British and even German officers (and soliers) who contributed to the books.
"Contributed" - did you grasp the "rewrite hsitory" comment ?
You demonstrate a lack of a view of the alternatives presented.
I've read lots too, for example of the allied camps in which in the 5 years AFTER the war millions of German's died. That Eisenhower gave written instruction to shoot anyone providing food to the prisoners !!! So are we now goign to trade which books we've read as a form of ego-boost. OR try to see the other point presented. Everyoen already is aware of the acts you 've desribed, Fleet, it's the leap of assumptions you make that are questionable and have alternative meanings. eg if you can really tell of a FUTURE event, then give me the lottery numbers for next week. Anyoen who can say as FACT that more woudl have died is clearly able to read events along timelines :)

[spi-ti-tout]

I'll look for transcripts.
Our presidents have the extremely difficult task of trying to end (two) world wars. It's really easy to sit back in a chair and criticize.
Which two wars are you talking about?

[Matra et Alpine]

Amazing! "The horrors we perpetuate." We? What about Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
It looks like you are one of those "Blame America" persons.
The U.S. and allies ENDED the horrors of the Nazi death camps and the Japanese torture. Go READ some books, will you? Try "A Democracy at War: America's Fight at Home and Abroad in WWII" (by William L. O'Neill) and
Waken up you small minded little man !!

Because I suggest that mankind perpetuates horror and it saddening, you are so insecure you take that to be a "blame America" comment.
THAT reflects your lack of a worldwide view, compassion and intelligence !!
Go back ad read the words you d!pst!ck because putting 'words' like that in my mouth are unacceptable.
READ IT.

Go read on the deaths the Allies perpetuated in Germany prison camps after the war.
Go read the books on the represseion of the peopls democratic party in Korea in the years following 1945 when a people wanted to have their own political system and were prevented. An act that ultimately led to the Korean War
You show again that IF you read books you clearly only absorb the parts to fit your bias.

[crisis]

I'll look for transcripts.

Of course they were given time. We were not the bad guys you know. Are you on their side?
You dont know how much time and what conditions were offered. Why does there have to be sides? That is so simplistic. I dont think America is the "bad guys". I also dont think America has been blameless, faultless or behaved perfectly throughout history. Can you accept that?

Our presidents have the extremely difficult task of trying to end (two) world wars. It's really easy to sit back in a chair and criticize.
Well maybe they should have worked in pizza shops if it was too hard. They aspired to presidency and would have known the difficulty of the job. Truman took over during the war so he must have had an idea what was going on. Of course it wasnt easy and it is easy to judge in hindsight. But history will judge their actions. Are we to sit back and say "oh , ok whatever they did must have been right because it was hard and war and all that stuff you know"? I am saying that dropping the bombs on Japan was not, in my opinion neccessarily the only and less costly way to end the war. That does not caal Amercia "bad guys", it does not state that I am on anyones side (although being Australian I am on your side re WW2 allies) and it is not a general criticism of the US or any of the presidents.

Really? How the German and Japanese command behaved has no barring? I suggest you talk to some Holocast survivors. I'm sure the palace had underground living areas in which bombs would not affect.
The German and Japanese governments acts do not legitimise barbaric acts to be played upon their civillian population. Did the US carpet bomb Iraq because they wanted Saddam?


1945 - Japan. Emperor Palace Hotel. No bomb damage.

[Fleet 500]

Because I suggest that mankind perpetuates horror and it saddening, you are so insecure you take that to be a "blame America" comment.
THAT reflects your lack of a worldwide view, compassion and intelligence !!
Go back ad read the words you d!pst!ck because putting 'words' like that in my mouth are unacceptable.
READ IT.

From what you've been writing, you've seemed to have doubted much of what the U.S. did (like the A-bomb) while not mentioning the horrors that Japan and Germany (and recently Iraq) did.

So tell me in your own words:
Was it a good thing that America fought in WWII and help defeat Germany and defeat Japan?
Is the U.S., on the whole, a good nation or an evil nation?
Is there any nation in the world that is perfect?

[Fleet 500]

I am saying that dropping the bombs on Japan was not, in my opinion neccessarily the only and less costly way to end the war. That does not caal Amercia "bad guys", it does not state that I am on anyones side (although being Australian I am on your side re WW2 allies)
To the thousands who were about to be sent into Japan, I would say that dropping the bomb, for them, was necessary, since many of them would have never returned home.

[Fleet 500]

I dont think America is the "bad guys". I also dont think America has been blameless, faultless or behaved perfectly throughout history. Can you accept that?

I can... I wonder if Matra can?

[crisis]

To the thousands who were about to be sent into Japan, I would say that dropping the bomb, for them, was necessary, since many of them would have never returned home.
Soldiers vs civillians (women and children). With that rationale though why two, or why not six?

[Fleet 500]

NO IT IS NOT.
It is conjecture, It IS highly likely that it saved lives.
To say anything else is to lie.

you again take a word and make an ASS out of U, not ME :)

"Contributed" - did you grasp the "rewrite hsitory" comment ?
You demonstrate a lack of a view of the alternatives presented.

Obviously, if Japan refused to surrender, the fighting would have gone on and more lives would have been lost. The end result: the A-bomb ended the war... a war which was costing lives every day.

Words or no words, you are aware that the U.S. warned Japan before dropping the first A-bomb?

You are hopeless! Since when is contributing real life war experiences "rewriting history?" Again, you are hopeless. :rolleyes:

[Fleet 500]

Soldiers vs civillians (women and children). With that rationale though why two, or why not six?
If you were a soldier about to be sent into Japan (as my dad was) and heard that there was a bomb which very likely would have forced Japan to surrender thus ending the war meaning you could go home, would you have been in favor of using it or not?

[spi-ti-tout]

Was it a good thing that America fought in WWII and help defeat Germany and defeat Japan?
Is the U.S., on the whole, a good nation or an evil nation?
Is there any nation in the world that is perfect?
It wasn't bad that America went and fought in WWII to help defeat Germany, but (some of) the steps they took were very unnecessary.

You can never take an apple that is spoilt on one side and fresh on the other side and say: On the whole, is this apple a good apple or a bad apple? Think about it.

No, not really. But atleast they're different. You cannot take the Lumina SS-400 and MR FQ-400 and say: Just because the Lumina is bad, is there any other car that is perfect? Both of the cars have their own cons in their own different way. You can never compare two countries and say that just because this one is bad that one is not perfect so that one is just as bad as this one.

[Fleet 500]

It's widely known that they screwed up Bush's account post to make him president. And no I'm not only saying this because I watchded Farenheit 9/11.
So now, Fox made Bush president? Lol.
What is this "account post" you are talking about?

[Fleet 500]

It wasn't bad that America went and fought in WWII to help defeat Germany, but (some of) the steps they took were very unnecessary.

Yeah, no country is perfect. And sometimes unnecessary things happen during wars. That's why war is avoided when possible.

[crisis]

If you were a soldier about to be sent into Japan (as my dad was) and heard that there was a bomb which very likely would have forced Japan to surrender thus ending the war meaning you could go home, would you have been in favor of using it or not?
I wonder. If you knew how many innocent people it would kill and maim and how it would continue to kill, disfigure and affect them for years to come. And whether the second one was as neccesary as the first.

[crisis]

Yeah, no country is perfect. And sometimes unnecessary things happen during wars. That's why war is avoided when possible.
Its show an open mind if you can admit and criticise them though.

[Fleet 500]

it would likely be the British Empire as it would not have been taken down by underhanded financial acts in the Indes. You would be living in a green and pleasant colonial land :)

Actually, I meant what would the world be like if there was no United States during the 1920s. Especially during WWI and WWII? What country would have defeated Japan?

[spi-ti-tout]

So now, Fox made Bush president? Lol.
What is this "account post" you are talking about?
Now knowing the election politics of your own country then?

[spi-ti-tout]

Actually, I meant what would the world be like if there was no United States during the 1920s. Especially during WWI and WWII? What country would have defeated Japan?
Oh pur-leeese, don't give an escuse of that sort. Think of a better one, any one.

[Fleet 500]

I wonder. If you knew how many innocent people it would kill and maim and how it would continue to kill, disfigure and affect them for years to come. And whether the second one was as neccesary as the first.
I doubt that- if you were a typical 19- or 20- or 21-year old soldier, you would want nothing more than to live and be able to return home.
How many innocent people did Japan torture and murder in the '30s?

Japan could have easily prevented the second bomb by surrendering. They didn't and paid the price. Considering that Japan is now an ally of the U.S., it looks like they don't blame the U.S. for ending their totalitarian, conquering-type of government.

[Fleet 500]

Its show an open mind if you can admit and criticise them though.
I thought I did?

[crisis]

I doubt that- if you were a typical 19- or 20- or 21-year old soldier, you would want nothing more than to live and be able to return home.
Many men from Australia went to both word wars knowing the dangers and willing to sacrifice themselves for their country. If you were given the choice to sacrifice your life or let thousands die and be wounded and have their descendants suffer for amny years, what would you do?

How many innocent people did Japan torture and murder in the '30s?
How many did the country (whatever that is), how many did the government, how many did the generals, how many did the civilian population?
Lets get down to specifics. Then we can decide who is responsible and who should be nuked because of it. Of course the US would not , now , consider any (other) countries use of nuclear weapons, no matter what their dilemma, to be acceptable.

Japan could have easily prevented the second bomb by surrendering.
You have no idea what negotiations went on and how they were proceeding. You assume , simply , that they were asked "do you surrender or we will drop an atomic bomb on you?" and they answered "no fvck off." The US would not have told them about the weapon they were going to use. It was top secret. You dont generally share that type of stuff withyour enemies.

They didn't and paid the price.
They, of course, being the innocent civillians who were not asked if they wanted to surrender or be nuked or surrender and have their loved ones come home.

Considering that Japan is now an ally of the U.S., it looks like they don't blame the U.S. for ending their totalitarian, conquering-type of government.
No , I imagine they are eternally grateful for having two of their cities obliterated by the most horrific weapon known to man. The US could have acheived that without nuking them first. The fact that you portray them as opressed by their own government mearly makes it more unjust that the general populace bore the brunt of the US's military force when they may have had as much reason to wish for their rulers to be overcome as the US did.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

so your saying Japan could have avoided the second bomb......by surrendering it's homeland? thats like saying "Hey, you can either surrender your house, or we'll knock it down!". sorry, thats not a just and fair solution, thats just a Damned if you do, Damned if you don't scenario.

And How many Japanese were killed, maimed, tortured, raped, pillaged and the like after WW2 by certain GI's and the like? Japan suffered just as much as it dished out. so did many countries.

FOX did not get bush elected, indecision from the Kerry camp, Bush's relatively 1 eyed approach, and some very good political advertising questioning Kerry as a leader did that all for him.

[Fleet 500]

so your saying Japan could have avoided the second bomb......by surrendering it's homeland? thats like saying "Hey, you can either surrender your house, or we'll knock it down!". sorry, thats not a just and fair solution, thats just a Damned if you do, Damned if you don't scenario.

Of course not. Where did you get that idea?
Surrendering meant stop invading other countries and cease hostilities.

[Fleet 500]

If you were given the choice to sacrifice your life or let thousands die and be wounded and have their descendants suffer for amny years, what would you do?

You have no idea what negotiations went on and how they were proceeding. You assume , simply , that they were asked "do you surrender or we will drop an atomic bomb on you?" and they answered "no fvck off." The US would not have told them about the weapon they were going to use. It was top secret. You dont generally share that type of stuff withyour enemies.

No , I imagine they are eternally grateful for having two of their cities obliterated by the most horrific weapon known to man. The US could have acheived that without nuking them first. The fact that you portray them as opressed by their own government mearly makes it more unjust that the general populace bore the brunt of the US's military force when they may have had as much reason to wish for their rulers to be overcome as the US did.
A good soldier is one who does his best to stay alive. Your question makes no sense.

The fact remains that the Japanese were given a chance to surrender (unlike the soldiers at Pearl Harbor 4 years earlier).

If any country should be ashamed, it should be Japan. The U.S. didn't start invading countries in hopes of conquering the whole Pacific. The U.S. didn't launch a sneak attack against a country it wasn't even at war with.
U.S. tourists are very welcome in Japan (I know several people who have vactioned there). It looks like they have (unlike you) gotten over being hit by two atomic bombs. Bombs which would never have been used if that country didn't declare war on the U.S.

[Fleet 500]

Oh pur-leeese, don't give an escuse of that sort. Think of a better one, any one.
Well, what country would have defeated Japan if the U.S. wasn't around? France? Lol.

[Fleet 500]

So it's allright to hug saddam on monday, But on friday we bomb you ??
And now lets blow up Iran after iraq:eek: Why not just blow the 2 up years ago save a lot of time now:p

Dam if i'm anti American am i going to be invaded:eek::D

'Nuff said:

[crisis]

A good soldier is one who does his best to stay alive. Your question makes no sense.
A soldier is also a human. A noble brave and selfless person would sacrifice themselves to save thousands. A good (good is the wrong word, it is brave noble and selfless) soldier would not sacrifice thousands of civillians to save himself. By fact that he is a soldier means he is willing to endanger of sacrifice himself for the greatergoodof his country.

The fact remains that the Japanese were given a chance to surrender (unlike the soldiers at Pearl Harbor 4 years earlier).
You say Japan like its an entity. The Japanese government were given a chance and they may have declined or not answered quick enough. The civillians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were then nuked as a result. The individuals who declined went untouched.

If any country should be ashamed, it should be Japan. The U.S. didn't start invading countries in hopes of conquering the whole Pacific. The U.S. didn't launch a sneak attack against a country it wasn't even at war with.
All correct. Niether did the civillians living ,(until 1945 anyway), in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

U.S. tourists are very welcome in Japan (I know several people who have vactioned there). It looks like they have (unlike you) gotten over being hit by two atomic bombs. Bombs which would never have been used if that country didn't declare war on the U.S.
Thats quite big of them. Of course there is a chance these people did not meet anyone from those cities. In any case we they must forgive I suppose. Just like we must forgive the Japanese soldiers who commited atrocities and the Germans who took part in the holocaust. (except the Germans actually, they were convicted of war crimes of which dropping a nuclear bomb on civillians obviously wasnt one of.)

[crisis]

'Nuff said:
Must we? :(

[Matra et Alpine]

Actually, I meant what would the world be like if there was no United States during the 1920s. Especially during WWI and WWII? What country would have defeated Japan?
What a numpy :)

erm, if there was no America then there would have been no war WITH America, no Pearl Harbour. You really need to grasp the concept of act and caonsequence :( I *TRIED* to get you thkning rationally about that when you first raised the "what if no America" nonense. All what-ifs and too many possibilities !!

For example if there had been no America, there would have been no American expansionist policies in the Pacific Ocean and rest of the world. Go read about commercial pressures applied in the British Empire, removing British ownership of the plantaions to local "control" which was then quickly bought up by America industrialists and the locals were BACK working with no ownership and little money. only the accent of the "masters" changed :(

ANYWA, you need to grasp and understnad cause and effect.
To your dad you ahve to ask woudl he watch a mother and her children be burnt alive in front of him or woudl he risk his life to save them ? Now consider that with the atomic bomb. How many soldiers woudl rathe have taken the risk than to have known their live was saved by the horrible death of hundresds of thousands of innocent civilans and the generations to follow ? I've seen men CRY at the memory of how THEY felt when the truth finally came out abotu the aftermath. If it didnt' bother your dad, that's fine with him. BUT maybe you need to ask and learn from that generations. I covered that LONG time agon on the BoB discussions. There is a lot to learn without nationlaistic bias from our forefathers !! You shoudl investigate and learn.

You make fun of ther comments because you cannot face up to the concept that America has done some selfish horrible acts in it's "glorious history".
Realise you are the only one I've seen posting who hasn't accepted their nations deficiencies.
THAT is the first measure of bias you can learn from.
Re the who woudl have defeated Japan ? Maybe they wouldn't have entered into the war. They may have taken the islands and stopped or they may have tried to invade Australia or they may have been defeated by China years later OR they may have ruled for 30 years and then fallen jsut as South African apartheid did. All possibilities. You seem to only think about the one that would end a war ( that may or not have started ) in 1945. PLEASE grasp cause and effect and stop viewing the microcosm. As they say, time to stop contemplating your navel :)

[Matra et Alpine]

From what you've been writing, you've seemed to have doubted much of what the U.S. did (like the A-bomb) while not mentioning the horrors that Japan and Germany (and recently Iraq) did.
You are guilty of making the most basic mistakes in discussion and debate.
If you'd responded like that in a junior school debate you'd have been makred f- :)

You keep defending the US, we keep pointing out the errors of the so-called-facts you cite.

I and many others have said many good things about the US.
but as was pointed out if one half of the apple is bad and the ither good. Can you say it's good ? :) Is that sinking home.

I've not met many folks who DIDN'T doubt the A-bomb. Hell go read what Openheimer felt about it !!! To look at the horror it created with a dispassionate and cold heart takes a uniqwue kind of person :( To only see 2 choices at the time takes a pretty dumb person :(
So tell me in your own words:
Was it a good thing that America fought in WWII and help defeat Germany and defeat Japan?
Yes, does that mean ALL of the acts were good ?> Hell NO - and if you think so then you CLEARLY HAVE NOT read much outside of American biased coverage :(
Is the U.S., on the whole, a good nation or an evil nation?
How can a 'nation' be good or evil ?
Has America had some great leadership ? Yes. Has it had some evil ones, hell yes - you think McCarthyiism was "good" - go ask all the victims destroyed because of their political affiliations !! HAS GWB made America an "evil nation" - yep in the eyes of the majority of folks outside of America :( Are American's "evil" ? Hell no, A tiny minority who weild power seem to be though !!
Is there any nation in the world that is perfect?
Has anyone ever said that ? NOPE :)
SHODL every nation try to be "better" ? Shoudl every nation try to adhere to lawful procedures ? Should every nation treat all other nations as equal ?
Is America ? NOPE
Is anyone ? The Swiss and the Norwegians probably run a close tie for me :), but how can any nation be "perfect" ? It's a stupid question :) always guaranteed to get the asnwer no as YES is impossible. Does that mean no nation can improve by self analysis, relfection and criticism ? Hell yes they can, just GWB won't lket America do that - hell he can't even be self-reflective on himself ( the famous "fool you once" is classic pshychiatric case :) )

[Matra et Alpine]

How many innocent people did Japan torture and murder in the '30s?
Ho many innocent people is America torturing and murdering in the 2000s ?
Considering that Japan is now an ally of the U.S., it looks like they don't blame the U.S. for ending their totalitarian, conquering-type of government.
THAT is the most stupid remark in this thread and you've been posting quite a few doosies :)

It's called "moving on".

Doesn't look as if all the Iraqi's have stopped blaming the US for the end of THEIR totalitarian state. There is a HUGE gulf of possibilities in both cases. you only think of one to support your narrow-minded nationlism. You again confuse a nations acts with it's peoples. I'm betting there will be some Japanese who do blame the US for their acts. You don't here thir voices because you keep your ears closed :( Go read Oppenheimer, HE blamed himself for giving America the tool to deply. Do you think HE didn't blame the "nation" for deploying it too ????

[Slicks]

Ho many innocent people is America torturing and murdering in the 2000s ?

This is getting ridiculous...
Are people with guns shooting and holding hostages innocent? The inocent people that are getting killed is by mistake. Unlike the Taliban who are not accidently tortuing and killing innocent people.

[Blitz_]

Some1 hasnt watch the doco's on america have they? lol michael moore is hell biased, but opens things up, guantanamo bay is a complete and utter joke of a place and should be shut down, yanks torture the hell out of any1, specially the cops, proven fact and every1 knows it, theyll smash the crap out of u and ask questions later. How bout the pictures on the matter of torturing iraqi prisoners, schocking to say the least.

Iraqi civilians are less privaliged compared to western nations, their culture is different and they have a lot more expectations from themselves, and from a young age they can be divulged with a lot of wrong or right attitutes and beliefs. So they may in fact be brought up thinking that Coalition forces are the evil forces, and they go out and kill, just like we were brought up to believe the iraqi's are bad. They have different vitrues and moral values than us, so its wrong to judge them like this, but that is my opinion.

About the no USA for WWI and WWII, the what if? questions, well the Brits were a joke of an army, to be honest, ive watched countles hours of bio's and countless books, the yanks won on sheer luck and numbers sometimes, and some of the best soldiers proved the be the underdogs, tuskagee airmen, tabrook, u name it. USA and Britian were not that fabulous when looked at the whole perspective of the war, both of them in fact. It was the resources and number of soldiers that solidified their victory. But when u look at the smaller missions like the battle of britain and operation market garden u can observe the tactical brilliance ( or failure ) of both armies.

Any perfect nations, hell no! but take a look at smaller communities, some small remote, never discovered tribes in africa or watever, would have a perfect societ, why? they have been priveleged not to been witness to the horrors or crime, rape etc. Isolated communites are probably close to perfect, as for a nation or country? hmmmm the swiss i'd say, very nice country.

[Matra et Alpine]

This is getting ridiculous...
Are people with guns shooting and holding hostages innocent? The inocent people that are getting killed is by mistake. Unlike the Taliban who are not accidently tortuing and killing innocent people.
no disagreement on the Taliban.
That's irrelevant to the actions of AMERICA !!
So all those people held illegally in Guantanemo are "mistakes" ? better ask GWB to let them free then !!!
What about all those in "camp freedom" ? Wre they all guilty ?

I think you are selctively chosing to ignore the illegal arrest, detainment and torture of people and chosing to pick on the "friendly fire" incidents and ignoring in some of those attacks to recognise they were actioned to take out everyoen in a building because ONE person was known to be in it. Are all the others KNOWN guilty ?
Are all people killed in American action "by accident" or by lack of intelligence, lack of care, lack of concern ?

I just will repeat what seems hard to get over and concerns me greatly for the future of the world if there are many American like yourself Slicks.....
ALL should operate within the law, be answerable to the law and be sure that any action taken is appropriate in it's target and the means to act.
2 wrongs dont'make a rigt. Another ones actiosn does NOT release or obligations to act lawfully and with respect. SADLY lacking in some cases adn until it IS will only generate MORE bad feelings and fuel the terrorists.

[Blitz_]

^^ agree, america, do ur job, set up a political structure, get peace, or close to it, and get the hell out, it cost so much to fund the war, that, maybe wif the money spent, bush could have solved world hunger instead of trying to stop one country, think about it and do the math, id rather save the millions of dying people to be honest

[Fleet 500]

This is getting ridiculous...
Are people with guns shooting and holding hostages innocent? The inocent people that are getting killed is by mistake. Unlike the Taliban who are not accidently tortuing and killing innocent people.
Wow... someone here with brains!

[Fleet 500]

A soldier is also a human. A noble brave and selfless person would sacrifice themselves to save thousands. A good (good is the wrong word, it is brave noble and selfless) soldier would not sacrifice thousands of civillians to save himself. By fact that he is a soldier means he is willing to endanger of sacrifice himself for the greatergoodof his country.

The civillians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were then nuked as a result.

All correct. Niether did the civillians living ,(until 1945 anyway), in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

How would the American soldiers sacrificing themselves to save thousands help end WWII?

This may come as a shock to you, but it would have been impossible to fight (and win) WWII with NO civilian casualties. You must be living in fantasyland.

[Fleet 500]

This is getting ridiculous...

It certainly is. The U.S. and allies ended a horrific war which Germany and Japan (and, in the beginning, Italy) started and all some people here can do is complain that bombs were used! Of course they were, it was a WAR!

[crisis]

How would the American soldiers sacrificing themselves to save thousands help end WWII?
They dont commit kamikaze. They go to war knowing the possibility they may be killed or wounded. They risk their lives. The question is would they risk their lives to save thousands of civillians.

This may come as a shock to you, but it would have been impossible to fight (and win) WWII with NO civilian casualties. You must be living in fantasyland.
Collateral damage is a unfortunate but begrudingly accepted consequence of war. If you attempt to bomb a munitions factory and kill people living near by it is tragic but in the context of war unavoidable. There is a distinct difference to targetting a city. By the way the British were as bad as this except they did not use such a horrific weapon.

[CdocZ]

you know.....it would be so funny if i emailed this to the white house......:p

[crisis]

It certainly is. The U.S. and allies ended a horrific war which Germany and Japan (and, in the beginning, Italy) started and all some people here can do is complain that bombs were used! Of course they were, it was a WAR!
Nuclear bombs that killed civillians. The type of bombs the US now feels the rest of the world should not have even though they are the only ones who felt the need to use them.

[crisis]

you know.....it would be so funny if i emailed this to the white house......:p
Make me laugh.

[Fleet 500]

Must we? :(
But there are many more who want the help from the U.S. than don't. (That is if you ignored those biased polls from CBS, ABC, or whatever). Just after the election, it was shown that Iraqi people do not want the U.S. to leave yet because we are helping rebuild the country.
The picture you posted are from idiots who have no idea that they are much, much, much, much better off without Saddam out (thanks the the U.S. and coaltion countries).

[Fleet 500]

Nuclear bombs that killed civillians. The type of bombs the US now feels the rest of the world should not have even though they are the only ones who felt the need to use them.
Is your mind really that simple? The U.S. used A-bombs to STOP another country from invading a whole part of the world (the Western Pacific). Countries like N. Korea and Iran would use them to attempt to gain power and/or conquer their neighbors. Do I really have to spell it out for you?

[crisis]

But there are many more who want the help from the U.S. than don't. (That is if you ignored those biased polls from CBS, ABC, or whatever). Just after the election, it was shown that Iraqi people do not want the U.S. to leave yet because we are helping rebuild the country.
The picture you posted are from idiots who have no idea that they are much, much, much, much better off without Saddam out (thanks the the U.S. and coaltion countries).
How do you know. I know you get the biased polls from FOX. Those idiots live their and have an opinion. Personally I think Iraq would be better off but I wont project my uninformed biased opinion on the people of Iraq. I would like to know a factual figure on who was for and who was against the invasion.

[crisis]

Is your mind really that simple?
No.
The U.S. used A-bombs to STOP another country from invading a whole part of the world (the Western Pacific).
Incorrect. The US used them when they were sweeping the Japanese back out of the Pacific with the help of Australia and Britian to name a couple. They held the upper hand and with the European theatre decided Japan faced the might of the rest of the allies. Japan was in no position to do anything but fight for its own survival.
Stop trying to write history.

Countries like N. Korea and Iran would use them to attempt to gain power and/or conquer their neighbors. Do I really have to spell it out for you?
I am quite sure I dont want to see either of these with them. The fact remains the US is the only country to have used them and on two non military targets.

[Fleet 500]

How bout the pictures on the matter of torturing iraqi prisoners, schocking to say the least.

How bout what the Iraqi army does to American (and coalition countries) prisoners? They chop their heads off! I would say "slightly" more extreme than stripping Iraqis and taking pictures with a bag over their head, or sleep depreviation, or women's underwear on their head- you know, that kind of "torture."
Also, any soldiers who treated Iraqis in violation of regulations were punished. Somehow, I doubt that the Iraqi soldiers who cut American's heads off were tortured; probably praised by their superiors. There's no comparison here!

[Fleet 500]

Incorrect. The US used them when they were sweeping the Japanese back out of the Pacific with the help of Australia and Britian to name a couple. They held the upper hand and with the European theatre decided Japan faced the might of the rest of the allies. Japan was in no position to do anything but fight for its own survival.
Stop trying to write history.

I am quite sure I dont want to see either of these with them. The fact remains the US is the only country to have used them and on two non military targets.
Right, the Japanese were being cleared out of the Pacific, however, they still refused to surrender and, after 4 long, bloody years, the war ended.

Yes, we used them and ended a war which would have gone on even longer if we hadn't. Why do you keep taking the side of the Japanese? They started the whole thing!

[Fleet 500]

How do you know. I know you get the biased polls from FOX. Those idiots live their and have an opinion. Personally I think Iraq would be better off but I wont project my uninformed biased opinion on the people of Iraq. I would like to know a factual figure on who was for and who was against the invasion.
If you look up something on the Fox website, almost everytime they are quoting info from another source! That shoots your "bised" theory clear away.
Are only non-conservative networks "idiots?" There are no liberal networks which are "idiots?" Very hard to believe. The leftist networks are so obviously biased. So, there is ONE network which isn't leftist- that's bad? Do they all have to been left-leaning for the news to be accurate? No way.

[Matra et Alpine]

But there are many more who want the help from the U.S. than don't. (That is if you ignored those biased polls from CBS, ABC, or whatever). Just after the election, it was shown that Iraqi people do not want the U.S. to leave yet because we are helping rebuild the country.
The picture you posted are from idiots who have no idea that they are much, much, much, much better off without Saddam out (thanks the the U.S. and coaltion countries).
You know, I read that and all I coudl think was

Britain .. Northern Ireland ... IRA .. UDA ....
Lots of people didnt' want Britain to leave.
Lots of people wanted Irealand to be united.
Lots of people wanted peace.
Lots of people wanted the Catholics out of the provinces.
Lots of people wanted the Protestants out of the island.
Lots of people hated the army
Lots of people suported the army.

It all depended when you asked, where you asked, who you asked.
To take a poll at face value without understand WHAT the question was and how it was phrased is foolish.

Being FINALLY able to here some politicians publicly apologise for what was doen hopefully will lead to more doing the same. Because if there is one thing learned in NI since 1918 it's that you cannot control a populatoin by fear and force of "occupation"

So,
"Do you want American investment" ? That Q only a fool would say no to.
"Do you want American forces to walk yourt streets with automatic rifles and tanks" Only a fool woudl say yes to that - after all it's the "right to bear arms"; in the American constitution is so you can prevetn your government taking that action :)

[crisis]

Right, the Japanese were being cleared out of the Pacific, however, they still refused to surrender and, after 4 long, bloody years, the war ended.
Your answer, nuke civillians.
Yes, we used them and ended a war which would have gone on even longer if we hadn't. Why do you keep taking the side of the Japanese? They started the whole thing!
Dont be so simple. Now we are going backto the start of the argument. You beleive nuking two of their cities was tho only way to end it. I dont. It has nothing to do with who started it. Do you nuke the cities of every country that starts a war?
I am on the side who fought the Japanese in WW2. I dont agree that the US neede touse atomic bombs. See , you can do both.

[Fleet 500]

erm, if there was no America then there would have been no war WITH America, no Pearl Harbour. You really need to grasp the concept of act and caonsequence.

Realise you are the only one I've seen posting who hasn't accepted their nations deficiencies.

Re the who woudl have defeated Japan ? Maybe they wouldn't have entered into the war. They may have taken the islands and stopped or they may have tried to invade Australia or they may have been defeated by China years later OR they may have ruled for 30 years and then fallen jsut as South African apartheid did.
Yeah, if there was no America, Japan would have been free to invade all of the Pacific! You are the one who needs to grasp the concept of reality!

Really, I thought I already said that the U.S. is not a perfect nation? :confused:

Yeah, "may have," "may have," etc. Luckily the U.S WAS around so Japan would never have the chance to dominate the whole far east. You are welcome. ;)

[Fleet 500]

Your answer, nuke civillians.

Dont be so simple. Now we are going backto the start of the argument. You beleive nuking two of their cities was tho only way to end it. I dont. It has nothing to do with who started it. Do you nuke the cities of every country that starts a war?
I am on the side who fought the Japanese in WW2. I dont agree that the US neede touse atomic bombs. See , you can do both.
My answer- end the war. Which is what happened.

Some people believe the A-bomb should have been used to hasten the end of the war; some people believe it should not have been used. I am with the first group. Simple.

[Fleet 500]

Your answer, nuke civillians.

I'm curious... if you were an American General would you have said this:
"I'm going to send a couple hundred thousands of men into Japan to fight them. We already have a nuclear bomb which could make that country surrender in about 4 days without risking even a single soldier going into Japan, but I don't think we'll be using it."

If you say yes, I wouldn't want you to be my General!

[crisis]

If you look up something on the Fox website, almost everytime they are quoting info from another source! That shoots your "bised" theory clear away.
But they only tell you the bits they want you to hear. Im sure Al Jezeera gets its stories from other sources too. How often dothey both match. Oops there goes your theory!

Are only non-conservative networks "idiots?" There are no liberal networks which are "idiots?" Very hard to believe. The leftist networks are so obviously biased. So, there is ONE network which isn't leftist- that's bad? Do they all have to been left-leaning for the news to be accurate? No way.
I never said that. Why do you make statements and attribute them to me?

Gene Kimmel Sr.Dir. of the Public Policy & Advocacy Consumers Union
"When you see the properties Rupert Murdoch owns around the
world, the strong, conservative point-of-view that those
properties often reflect, it’s different than ABC or CBS or NBC. Sure, they reflecta point-of-view but not nearly as strong or consistently
strong from one ideological perspective."

Hes an expert not me.

[crisis]

Really, I thought I already said that the U.S. is not a perfect nation? :confused:

I invite you to cite a case where you beleive that to be so.

[Matra et Alpine]

How would the American soldiers sacrificing themselves to save thousands help end WWII?
Every soldier who died from every nation made that ultimate sacrifice.
That is the fundamental issue facing anyeon who joisn their military.
THEY *ARE* required to make that sacrifice if necessary.
Do you know anyoen in the military ? You need to talk to understand what it meant. My dad talked about all the friends he lost in the RAF during WW2. In fighters and some of the bomber crews he met.
This may come as a shock to you, but it would have been impossible to fight (and win) WWII with NO civilian casualties. You must be living in fantasyland.
You are confusing colalteral damage and intedned damge.
See my comments on Allied carpet and fire-bombing of Germany earlier. THAT was a very sad act.
The man who designed the "bouncing bomb" CRIED when he saw the damage inflicted on the flooded population and was VERY upset that his design had caused theat. He equally was very upset at the air crews lost in delivering them.
Please don't confuse the disregard for human life of recent 'attacks' with the TRULY accidental death and maiming of non-combatants.

[crisis]

My answer- end the war. Which is what happened.

Some people believe the A-bomb should have been used to hasten the end of the war; some people believe it should not have been used. I am with the first group. Simple.
Yes, it would seem so. ;)

[crisis]

I'm curious... if you were an American General would you have said this:
"I'm going to send a couple hundred thousands of men into Japan to fight them. We already have a nuclear bomb which could make that country surrender in about 4 days without risking even a single soldier going into Japan, but I don't think we'll be using it."

If you say yes, I wouldn't want you to be my General!
Also throw in , "it will kill and maim thousands of women and children and condemn the survivours to years of continued consequences that we are not even sure about."
Then ask them.

[Matra et Alpine]

Is your mind really that simple? The U.S. used A-bombs to STOP another country from invading a whole part of the world (the Western Pacific).
What a load of crock.

Japan was a defeated nation and was no longer a threat.
It had lost it's navy.
The air force were limited to ineffective attacks and using kamikaze. Guess what you cannot invade using kamikaze attacks :)

Japan had no natural resources so could be ended by blockade.

Countries like N. Korea and Iran would use them to attempt to gain power and/or conquer their neighbors. Do I really have to spell it out for you?
No everyone understands how the US used it's nuclear power to gain control :)
The American/Russian escalation led to the perceived power of the A-bomb. If you're going to play what-ifs about the US not being in a war, you shoudl also play the what-iff of no A-bomb race and the make-up of the planet then :)

Oh and aI love the concept of using the A-bomb to conquer a neighbour :)
Even in Europe it was accepted thaqt the deployment of battlefield tactical warheads was pointless as the outcome of it's use is the ultimate destructino of what you want to retain !! So who woudl Iran drop a nuke on ? Iraw - and how long before the dust has deposited all that selenium, uranium etc on the whole region nad makes it ALL uninhabitable. I see the scare-mongering used in the 50/60s still pervades some of the corners of the US :)

[Matra et Alpine]

How bout what the Iraqi army does to American (and coalition countries) prisoners? They chop their heads off! I would say "slightly" more extreme than stripping Iraqis and taking pictures with a bag over their head, or sleep depreviation, or women's underwear on their head- you know, that kind of "torture."
and why does that treatment justify the allied forces doing the same ?
PLEASE realise that you cannot act the animal and still try to suggest being civilsed and "freeing" anything :(
Where did the Iraqi ARMY cut the heads of prisoners ?
I think you confuse the terorist and the army and the people.
ALSO, you have to realise the Islamic law and it's application. America allows for capital punishment. In the UK we dont' and find it disconcerting to see a legal system execute the guilty. I'm sure you woudl defend your right to follow your laws. So why aren't the Islamic laws permitted ? In Islam court the defendant can determien the punishment of the guilty and those are most of the punishments we used to see years back.
Please understand the different LEGAL system.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm pointing out you better consider that one nations laws are NOT "right" over anothers. After all if that's the case the Eureopan nations are "better" than the US. Shoudl we all force the US to change - well Amnesty does IIRC :)
Also, any soldiers who treated Iraqis in violation of regulations were punished. Somehow, I doubt that the Iraqi soldiers who cut American's heads off were tortured; probably praised by their superiors. There's no comparison here!
Yeah, like once they were caught !! That first sentence is a crock of sh!t. It was going on and NOT getting punished until a foot soldier decided he didn't liek ti !!!!
That "probably" shows your disregard for others rights. You have no evidence of it - if they did it the Iraqi Army wre clearly smarter than the US GIs and didnt' take pictures :(

[Matra et Alpine]

I'm curious... if you were an American General would you have said this:
"I'm going to send a couple hundred thousands of men into Japan to fight them. We already have a nuclear bomb which could make that country surrender in about 4 days without risking even a single soldier going into Japan, but I don't think we'll be using it."

If you say yes, I wouldn't want you to be my General!
Showing your disregard for non-combatants and your blind belief that and American life is valued above another.
All live is sacred and we shoudl try to do the least especially to non-combatants.

And in typical style you try to make it an either or. There were other options. Blockade woudl have shut Japan down within 1-2 years. No deaths, no battles, no A-bomb. They had no natural resources !!! You justify one action by taking a ludicrously extreme alternative. Try some of the ground in the middle !!!

[Matra et Alpine]

My answer- end the war. Which is what happened.

Some people believe the A-bomb should have been used to hasten the end of the war; some people believe it should not have been used. I am with the first group. Simple.
So are you happy if/when Al'Quida drop a dirty bomb in your state to "end the war" ?
I'll bet you're not. It's different whn you consider that the justification can be used AGAINST YOU isn't it :(

[Fleet 500]

But they only tell you the bits they want you to hear. Im sure Al Jezeera gets its stories from other sources too. How often do they both match. Oops there goes your theory!

I never said that. Why do you make statements and attribute them to me?
As I asked before, can you provide proof that Fox either "twists" or "omits" stories they receive?

That's what your implying. Or are you saying that Fox can't be believed or because they are a non-liberal news station. If another non-liberal news station appeared, that was very similar to Fox, would you say that one can't be "believed," either?

[Fleet 500]

Also throw in , "it will kill and maim thousands of women and children and condemn the survivours to years of continued consequences that we are not even sure about."
Then ask them.
It was either them be maimed or the soldiers and, of course, a country looks after it's soliders, not the other country's people (that is, they do if they want to win the war).

So, what would you have done? Send in the hundreds of thousands of troops or use the A-bomb and end the war in less than one week?

[Fleet 500]

So are you happy if/when Al'Quida drop a dirty bomb in your state to "end the war" ?
I'll bet you're not. It's different whn you consider that the justification can be used AGAINST YOU isn't it :(
No because we are not a terrorist nation. When we go to war, it's to free people. Like you really didn't know that already!

[Matra et Alpine]

Yeah, if there was no America, Japan would have been free to invade all of the Pacific! You are the one who needs to grasp the concept of reality!

Really, I thought I already said that the U.S. is not a perfect nation? :confused:

Yeah, "may have," "may have," etc. Luckily the U.S WAS around so Japan would never have the chance to dominate the whole far east. You are welcome. ;)
Your nationalism is as extreme as I've ever seen.
You really DO belive that only America can end a war.
TRY to think about the logistics of a Japanese expansion.Unless they gained significant inroads on mainland asia they were forever at the danger of their sea routes being stopeed. Japan had not natural resources. All materials needed to be shipped in. So a realtively easy nation to control.
WHAT is often forgotten is that America was really fighting 2 wars in the Pacific. Against the Japanese and between the Navy and the Army. The C-in-C had a MAJOR issue on being first to step on islands he had promised to free. If you read about the preferred actions and those undertaken you'll see that many Americans died because 2 American military groups and a President coudlnt' agree :(
So in the world of what-ifs there are many variables. Without MacArthur there may have been no need to waste so many American lives.
Get your head up from inside "fortress America" and grasp the big picture and not hte linear hisotory taught in school.

[Matra et Alpine]

No because we are not a terrorist nation. When we go to war, it's to free people. Like you really didn't know that already!
Sorry, I thought you went to war to capture the Weapons of Mass Destruction and make the world a safer place.

oh, that was just what Bush said to con everyone :(

To those being terrorised by allied forces, the American adn Britain ARE terrorists. We are occupying a seperate sovereign nation. PLEASE consider the Irish parallel to try to grasp it - of course that measn you need to learn the lessons we Brits have lived for 50 years :(

[Egg Nog]

Get your head up from inside "fortress America"

Hahahaha! I'm not going to join in on the political debate or side with either of you, but that was hilarious :)

[Fleet 500]

Japan was a defeated nation and was no longer a threat.
It had lost it's navy.
The air force were limited to ineffective attacks and using kamikaze. Guess what you cannot invade using kamikaze attacks :)

Japan had no natural resources so could be ended by blockade.

But how long would have a blockade taken? How many more U.S. soldiers would have been killed while waiting for the "defeated nation" to really be defeated?

As I said, there are some who thought the A-bombs should have been used and there are some who didn't.

[Matra et Alpine]

But how long would have a blockade taken? How many more U.S. soldiers would have been killed while waiting for the "defeated nation" to really be defeated?
Struggling with the concept of how you blockade an island :)
As I said, there are some who thought the A-bombs should have been used and there are some who didn't.
Yep, there are some who think having sex with animals is fine too !!!

[CdocZ]

there are some who think having sex with animals is fine too !!!
lol, i love taking certin things out of context......:D

[Fleet 500]

Hahahaha! I'm not going to join in on the political debate or side with either of you, but that was hilarious :)
How about "Imperialist Japan?" Or "Nazi Germany?" They were the real enemies, not this garbage about dropping bombs on nations that started the war and killed and tortured millions.

[Matra et Alpine]

How about "Imperialist Japan?" Or "Nazi Germany?" They were the real enemies, not this garbage about dropping bombs on nations that started it the war and killed and tortured millions.
You make this repeated error of seeing things as an either-or situation.
They are unrelated - or they shoudl be unless you are suggesting it was VENGEANCE :(

[Fleet 500]

lol, i love taking certin things out of context......:D
Yeah, Matra is an expert at diversion!

[Fleet 500]

You make this repeated error of seeing things as an either-or situation.
They are unrelated - or they shoudl be unless you are suggesting it was VENGEANCE :(
Of course it was "either-or." Either Japan and Germany would have won or they wouldn't have. If Japan was allowed to invade island after island in the Pacific, they had a good chance of winning. It took the U.S. four years to kick Japan out of the land they invaded.

[Matra et Alpine]

Yeah, Matra is an expert at diversion!
and yet the post didn't

ah well :)

Or maybe it does when interpreted by CIA intelligence experts adn they can "advise" on how it was diversion :)

[CdocZ]

Yeah, Matra is an expert at diversion!
uh no......it just sounded funny. "people enjoy having sex with animals!!!!" amazing what you can get if you take a single sentence and delete a few words :D

[Egg Nog]

How about "Imperialist Japan?" Or "Nazi Germany?" They were the real enemies, not this garbage about dropping bombs on nations that started the war and killed and tortured millions.

I wasn't even wanting to be a part of this debate, as I said before. It was just a hilarious insult. Hell, I'm not even taking sides. If you made a hilarious insult directed at him, I'd laugh then too.

[Fleet 500]

I wasn't even wanting to be a part of this debate, as I said before. It was just a hilarious insult. Hell, I'm not even taking sides. If you made a hilarious insult directed at him, I'd laugh then too.
Except that his post was inaccurate and mine was.

[Blitz_]

dayumn this has broken out into full blown argument!! ok, watever side ur from, wether it be a western civilian or a civilian in iraq, the countries fighting them are terrorists, so to the iraqis the yanks are the terrorists.

A-bomb was a huge mistake and a blockade would have been much, much better at defeating japan and winning the pacific theater of war. Japan was close to hitting australia really hard, but thanks to america were still australian :D

[crisis]

As I asked before, can you provide proof that Fox either "twists" or "omits" stories they receive?

Jeff Chester Exec. Dir. of Center for Digital Democracy.
" What makes Murdoch particularly dangerous is that he’s foremost a politician and he will use his immense media power to shape the content and especially the news that
furthers his interest and those of his allies, including the conservative Republican community. After all, Fox News is nothing more than a 24/7 political ad for the GOP."

FOX NEWS FOOTAGE: REPORT:
TEXT: “JOBS KILLER”
ANCHOR: John Kerry’s plan to bring millions of jobs back to America well some one here says, “watch out. Kerry’s plan will end up killing more jobs instead.”
FOX NEWS FOOTAGE: STOCK SMARTS COMMENTATOR TEXT: THE COST OF FREEDOM STUART VARNEY FOX BUSINESS NEWSCOMMENTATOR:
" I said previously that the market was neutral
on John Kerry, I think that was utterly wrong, I think the
market is down on John Kerry."
JAMES WOLCOTT VOICE OVER
"When the market goes down one of the things you often hear
is the market is worried about a Kerry victory."


FOX NEWS FOOTAGE: GRAPHIC 204 DAYS VOICE OVER:
"204 days until George W. Bush is re-elected."

COPY OF INTERNAL FOX MEMO DATE: 4/4/2004 From Moody
"The President goes to Charlotte to talk about job training. Buoyed by the 300K job figure last week, he can boast his policies are working."


VOICE OVER: You’re watching Fox News. Real journalism. Fair & Balanced.
"Just 263 days until you get to cast your vote and decide George W Bush deserves a second term."

Anonymous 2 Former FOX News Reporter
"When you have this Executive Vice President and those around him, who are consistently saying, “no we’re not gonna do that story, no this story’s bad, this story’s good”, and it becomes very clear to all the Bureau Chiefs, to everybody involved who have been there over a period of years, there are certain kinds of stories, it’s not even worth bringing up, there are other kinds of stories that you know management’s gonna love."


That's what your implying. Or are you saying that Fox can't be believed or because they are a non-liberal news station. If another non-liberal news station appeared, that was very similar to Fox, would you say that one can't be "believed," either?
I dont see the world as liberal or non liberal, as American or un American. FOX and you do. No wonder you get on. They say what you want to hear and believe. It is subtle, they dont have to make up lies. Just editorialize the news they choose to show you and give you their opinion. I have a scepticism of all corporate owned news media. They all have an agenda totheir major shareholders and owners. That why I seek news from amny sources. In the end you can only make up your mind to beleive or not. It is, in my opinion, frightnening that anyone would agressively defend a large corporate news service. What are they to you? You like the news they give you. They are part of your political persuasion. I dont have a political persuasion. I dont sat I vote Labour (Aus politics here) and then try to find what I like about their policies. My father did. But I didnt follow that because dad did. I judge our political parties on thei own particular policies and performances. I have changed many times and really dont find much to like about either of them. But at least I make a decision. Not let others make it for me so I can be a good Republican.

[crisis]

It was either them be maimed or the soldiers and, of course, a country looks after it's soliders, not the other country's people (that is, they do if they want to win the war).

So, what would you have done? Send in the hundreds of thousands of troops or use the A-bomb and end the war in less than one week?
I wouldnt of dropped the bomb. Japanes people are worth as much as Americans.

[crisis]

No because we are not a terrorist nation. When we go to war, it's to free people. Like you really didn't know that already!
Team America lives.
You know thats a comedy dont you. Probably some faggot commy liberal plot.

[crisis]

How about "Imperialist Japan?" Or "Nazi Germany?" They were the real enemies, not this garbage about dropping bombs on nations that started the war and killed and tortured millions.
You love to try and switch the blame. We all agree Japan and Germany were the agressors, the bad guys. That is their govenrments anyway. N one ever stated differently so your comments are irrelevant. We are saying that the US shouldnt have dropped nulcear weapons on the bad guys cities, the cities that housed the population of the indiviuals who started it, the cities that housed the population of people who tortured and murdered prisoners, jews etc etc. The should not have dropped the bomb on the innocent.

[crisis]

Yeah, Matra is an expert at diversion!
Its called a metaphor. It is designed to aid explaination by drawing an analogy between two similar concepts.

[crisis]

but thanks to america were still australian :D
One or two Australian soldiers may have helped out in their spare time.

[Fleet 500]

A-bomb was a huge mistake and a blockade would have been much, much better at defeating japan and winning the pacific theater of war. Japan was close to hitting australia really hard, but thanks to america were still australian :D
That's your opinion. It would have cost even more lives on the allied side.

Glad to hear you're still Australian. :)

[Fleet 500]

Team America lives.
You know thats a comedy dont you. Probably some faggot commy liberal plot.
A very poor way to challenge my post. You should of just said nothing!

[Fleet 500]

I wouldnt of dropped the bomb. Japanes people are worth as much as Americans.
Millions of Americans (and Europeans) agreed it was the best way to end the war.
In a way, more Japanese people were saved by dropping the two bombs than if we went in and invaded that country (which, again, was planned for Nov., 1945).

[Fleet 500]

You love to try and switch the blame. We all agree Japan and Germany were the agressors, the bad guys. That is their govenrments anyway. N one ever stated differently so your comments are irrelevant. We are saying that the US shouldnt have dropped nulcear weapons on the bad guys cities, the cities that housed the population of the indiviuals who started it, the cities that housed the population of people who tortured and murdered prisoners, jews etc etc. The should not have dropped the bomb on the innocent.
How did I "switch the blame?" The only blame placed on WWII is Japan and Germany (and to a lesser degree, Italy).

[Fleet 500]

FOX NEWS FOOTAGE: REPORT:
TEXT: “JOBS KILLER”
ANCHOR: John Kerry’s plan to bring millions of jobs back to America well some one here says, “watch out. Kerry’s plan will end up killing more jobs instead.”
FOX NEWS FOOTAGE: STOCK SMARTS COMMENTATOR TEXT: THE COST OF FREEDOM STUART VARNEY FOX BUSINESS NEWSCOMMENTATOR:
" I said previously that the market was neutral
on John Kerry, I think that was utterly wrong, I think the
market is down on John Kerry."
JAMES WOLCOTT VOICE OVER
"When the market goes down one of the things you often hear
is the market is worried about a Kerry victory."


FOX NEWS FOOTAGE: GRAPHIC 204 DAYS VOICE OVER:
"204 days until George W. Bush is re-elected."

COPY OF INTERNAL FOX MEMO DATE: 4/4/2004 From Moody
"The President goes to Charlotte to talk about job training. Buoyed by the 300K job figure last week, he can boast his policies are working."


VOICE OVER: You’re watching Fox News. Real journalism. Fair & Balanced.
"Just 263 days until you get to cast your vote and decide George W Bush deserves a second term."

Anonymous 2 Former FOX News Reporter

I watched (and taped) Fox for months before the 2004 election and not once did I hear a Fox reporter or voice-over say or see a graphic saying, "204 days until George W. Bush is re-elected." I did hear Hannity say it in jest; I also heard Alan Colmes say (in jest, too), [so many days] until John Kerry is elected. Can you provide a link showing that Fox said the above?

Quoting "anonymous" former Fox News reporters without a link is invalid.

And, I already said, commentors are not reporters. As if there are no commentators on CNN!

You still have not answered- post an example (with a link) in which a story Fox received was "twisted" or "distorted" before they reported on it.

[crisis]

A very poor way to challenge my post. You should of just said nothing!
Sounds like the perfect way. :D

[crisis]

Millions of Americans (and Europeans) agreed it was the best way to end the war.
Love the way you just pluck erroneous statistics out of the air and speak for millions of people you dont know.
In a way, more Japanese people were saved by dropping the two bombs than if we went in and invaded that country (which, again, was planned for Nov., 1945).
The two bombings killed 110,000 Japanese citizens and injured another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died from injuries or radiation.
Imagine how many Japanese you could have saved if you dropped three.

[crisis]

How did I "switch the blame?" The only blame placed on WWII is Japan and Germany (and to a lesser degree, Italy).
Because we are talking about the legitimacy of dropping nulcear bombson cities, not about who started the war. We would have agreed on that long ago.

[crisis]

I watched (and taped) Fox for months before the 2004 election and not once did I hear a Fox reporter or voice-over say or see a graphic saying, "204 days until George W. Bush is re-elected." I did hear Hannity say it in jest; I also heard Alan Colmes say (in jest, too), [so many days] until John Kerry is elected. Can you provide a link showing that Fox said the above?
This is a link to the transcript of Outfoxed, a documentary on FOX complete with comments from ex employees, media commentators and excerpts from FOX broadcasts.
http://www.outfoxed.org/docs/outfoxed_transcript.pdf


Quoting "anonymous" former Fox News reporters without a link is invalid.

And, I already said, commentors are not reporters. As if there are no commentators on CNN!
I will post this again for the third time. No one, me included said they trust CNN or anyone else. In fact I said I trust none of them entirely.

Gene Kimmel Sr.Dir. of the Public Policy & Advocacy Consumers Union
"When you see the properties Rupert Murdoch owns around the
world, the strong, conservative point-of-view that those
properties often reflect, it’s different than ABC or CBS or NBC. Sure, they reflecta point-of-view but not nearly as strong or consistently
strong from one ideological perspective."


You still have not answered- post an example (with a link) in which a story Fox received was "twisted" or "distorted" before they reported on it.

I posted this. I am loath to clog up the forum with it so read it this time.

Jeff Chester Exec. Dir. of Center for Digital Democracy.
" What makes Murdoch particularly dangerous is that he’s foremost a politician and he will use his immense media power to shape the content and especially the news that
furthers his interest and those of his allies, including the conservative Republican community. After all, Fox News is nothing more than a 24/7 political ad for the GOP."

FOX NEWS FOOTAGE: REPORT:
TEXT: “JOBS KILLER”
ANCHOR: John Kerry’s plan to bring millions of jobs back to America well some one here says, “watch out. Kerry’s plan will end up killing more jobs instead.”
FOX NEWS FOOTAGE: STOCK SMARTS COMMENTATOR TEXT: THE COST OF FREEDOM STUART VARNEY FOX BUSINESS NEWSCOMMENTATOR:
" I said previously that the market was neutral
on John Kerry, I think that was utterly wrong, I think the
market is down on John Kerry."
JAMES WOLCOTT VOICE OVER
"When the market goes down one of the things you often hear
is the market is worried about a Kerry victory."


FOX NEWS FOOTAGE: GRAPHIC 204 DAYS VOICE OVER:
"204 days until George W. Bush is re-elected."

COPY OF INTERNAL FOX MEMO DATE: 4/4/2004 From Moody
"The President goes to Charlotte to talk about job training. Buoyed by the 300K job figure last week, he can boast his policies are working."


VOICE OVER: You’re watching Fox News. Real journalism. Fair & Balanced.
"Just 263 days until you get to cast your vote and decide George W Bush deserves a second term."

Anonymous 2 Former FOX News Reporter
"When you have this Executive Vice President and those around him, who are consistently saying, “no we’re not gonna do that story, no this story’s bad, this story’s good”, and it becomes very clear to all the Bureau Chiefs, to everybody involved who have been there over a period of years, there are certain kinds of stories, it’s not even worth bringing up, there are other kinds of stories that you know management’s gonna love."



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet 500
That's what your implying. Or are you saying that Fox can't be believed or because they are a non-liberal news station. If another non-liberal news station appeared, that was very similar to Fox, would you say that one can't be "believed," either?


I dont see the world as liberal or non liberal, as American or un American. FOX and you do. No wonder you get on. They say what you want to hear and believe. It is subtle, they dont have to make up lies. Just editorialize the news they choose to show you and give you their opinion. I have a scepticism of all corporate owned news media. They all have an agenda totheir major shareholders and owners. That why I seek news from amny sources. In the end you can only make up your mind to beleive or not. It is, in my opinion, frightnening that anyone would agressively defend a large corporate news service. What are they to you? You like the news they give you. They are part of your political persuasion. I dont have a political persuasion. I dont sat I vote Labour (Aus politics here) and then try to find what I like about their policies. My father did. But I didnt follow that because dad did. I judge our political parties on thei own particular policies and performances. I have changed many times and really dont find much to like about either of them. But at least I make a decision. Not let others make it for me so I can be a good Republican.

[Egg Nog]

Except that his post was inaccurate and mine was.

What's your ^$&*@#ing problem? I didn't read either of your posts, I just laughed at a humorous insult. And that's what I said before, twice. Get over it. I'm not giving either of you special treatment.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

This has become a remarkably stupid argument. Your throwing facts out (For facts, Read opinion, Fleet) that can easily be rebutted, and yet you won't accept the other sides point of view.

I'm leaving this thread alone, not only am I talking to brick walls, but i'm trying to teach them to tap dance.

[Blitz_]

Lol yer it has gotten way our of hand, get back on track!! i like the corvette and mustang, they iz american and are good cars

[Matra et Alpine]

I watched (and taped) Fox for months before the 2004 election
Did you watch and tape other news programs too so you coudl identify any bias ?

EDIT: Oops, sorry, Blitz, you're doing a sterling job trying to avoid the trajectory of playable objects from the perambulating device.

Beyond the Corvette and the Mustang ( we gotta add the Viper ) what other modern cars are rated by American owners as good sports cars ??

[Blitz_]

Saleen is the only 1 that comes to mind at the current moment, im sure there are others as well

[Matra et Alpine]

Saleen is the only 1 that comes to mind at the current moment, im sure there are others as well
Yeah, what about Calloway ? Or is it seen like Lingenfilter as only a tuner ??

[UCR]

Mosler MT900.
Shelby Cobra.
Ford Gt.

There good sport cars in my opion.

[Fleet 500]

What's your ^$&*@#ing problem? I didn't read either of your posts, I just laughed at a humorous insult. And that's what I said before, twice. Get over it. I'm not giving either of you special treatment.
Glad you don't get overexcited about things! :rolleyes:

[Fleet 500]

Did you watch and tape other news programs too so you coudl identify any bias ?

Why should I bother to do that? I already know the others (like CNN, BBC, ABS, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC) are biased.
You seem to have a real problem because there is a lone major news station that does not lean left. Don't you think it's good that there is a least one that doesn't lean left?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Why should I bother to do that? I already know the others (like CNN, BBC, ABS, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC) are biased.
You seem to have a real problem because there is a lone major news station that does not lean left. Don't you think it's good that there is a least one that doesn't lean left?

Congratulations, you have just invalidated your entire argument.

You DON'T know, because you haven't been watching, or taping religiously.

You DON't know, because you don't understand their news services.

and You DON'T know, because you don't have a clue.

You've really let me down, i was looking foward to a decent argument, rather than just another one-eyed biased approach...... :(

[Matra et Alpine]

Why should I bother to do that? I already know the others (like CNN, BBC, ABS, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC) are biased.
You seem to have a real problem because there is a lone major news station that does not lean left. Don't you think it's good that there is a least one that doesn't lean left?
ha-ha, condemned by your own words, Fleet.

So in actual fact you ONLY know ONE view of the world news as portrayed by FOX.

Explains everything.

Also helps us in the future. We'll keep to using small sentences, simple words and lots of pictures, flash graphics and "analysis" by pretty anchorwomen/men ( I vote Matt to the position )

Getting a balanced opinion is not about finding a news show that doesn't lean :) It's about finding balanced inpt and testing that with alternative views. Hell I even listen to the Murdoch-media occasionally :)

[Coventrysucks]

Why should I bother to do that? I already know the others (like CNN, BBC, ABS, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC) are biased.

You know how you "know" how they are all "biased" - that is how we know that Fox is biased.

;)

P.S. the BBC do tend towards the left. Why don't you like them?
Not left enough?

Mosler MT900, great car.
Saleen S7 great car.
The C6 Corvette is impressive, but I don't like the looks.
The Ford GT is a very impressive feat, but they really should have come up with a new design, something we could look back on like we do with the original GT40.
Panoz did some interesting things in the mid-late '90s but seem to have gone very much off the boil.