Saddam's lawyer

[Fleet 500]

As I said, who?

I'll get back to you on that.

It matters that one person made a decision to kill thousands of civilians and destroy two cities despite the advice of his military. What was the motivation when so many high ranking military leaders believed it would have no effect on tending the war. If you could put aside your sickening blind patriotism for a second you would see that the excuse that it “saved thousands more lives” is clearly written by the U.S. to try to justify this inexcusable act.

Don't try to bring in "sickening blind patriotism" into it (whatever that means). The two A-bombs did end WWII with Japan.
Pres. Truman figured that the lives lost in the two A-bombs were preferable to the many thousands more lost if the war went on even longer.

Considering there were mearly 4 days between bombings it didn’t give them a lot of time. And as stated in the quotes I have posted many believed surrender negotiations were already underway.

Many may have "believed" the Japanese were ready to surrender, but a few notable high-ranking officials were not.
http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

Japan had received what would seem to have been overwhelming shocks. Yet, after two atomic bombings, massive conventional bombings and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese government still refused to surrender.

The Postdam Proclamation had called for "Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers" (U.S. Dept. of State, Postdam 2, pg 1475). On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Postdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three- War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda- adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (Butow, pg. 200-202).

Later that day, the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body- not the Big 6, not even the Emperor- that could rule as to whether Japan could surrender. And a unamimous decision was required (Butow, pg. 176-177, 208). But again War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. The key concern for the Japanese military was loss of honor, not Japan's destruction. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned (Sigal, pg. 265-267).

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The U.N. Unfortunately, Bush the elder went by the U.N.'s advice to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, but not to invade Iraq. This does, though, remove the stupid myth that Bush the elder was a "warmonger."

Honestly. Following the UN's advice, something the Americans might want to do more often considering they invented the organisation and use it as a scapegoat when things do not go their way, is not such a bad thing.

Don't try to make excuses like henk has. For Iraq to fire at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone was a clear violation of the cease-fire agreement.

To fly in a No-Fly Zone is a violation of the No-Fly Zone. Which is worse?

It was a lot more than two. And what is the argument?

That congress agreeing to this war was due, mostly, to the Republicans holding the balance of power.

And that point still stands.

The Bush administration, after analyzing data and reports, decided that it was too dangerous to let Saddam remain in power. There is evidence that Saddam planned to resume building WMD and possibly nuclear weapons once the "heat was off." Then there was the fact that there were terrorist training camps (Salman Pac, for one) in Iraq and known terrorists (for example,Abdul Rahmin Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals to make the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) were receiving safe haven in that country.

Planning to resume is the same as "we thought he looked like he was about to do something naughty". Anything preemptive is just moronic and not the way to run your country, or a war.

And there was no statement of intent regarding terrorist camps - it was about WMD's, something which the US believed him to have.

And we all know how that turned out.

[crisis]

Don't try to bring in "sickening blind patriotism" into it

You stop first.

(whatever that means).

That’s funny/ironic.

The two A-bombs did end WWII with Japan.

Major General Curtis E. LeMay
the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet,
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. .

Please explain why you know better than these people.

Pres. Truman figured that the lives lost in the two A-bombs were preferable to the many thousands more lost if the war went on even longer.

You know this how?

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

From your source.

the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today.

Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall thought that even after using A-bombs on Japan the invasion would still be necessary, anyway, as opposed to the belief that using atomic bombs on Japan would make the mainland invasion unnecessary

So based on this, saving further casualties played no part in the decision.

In a June 18, 1945 meeting with Truman and his military advisors, Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy argued that Japan should be permitted to retain the Emperor and should be given a warning of the atomic bomb in order to bring an earlier and less deadly surrender

Sounds simple and far less brutal. Especially for a country so interested in saving lives.

A point made by then Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy and seconded by the then Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Captain Ellis Zacharias is of particular importance. Regarding the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, McCloy later wrote, "everyone was so intent on winning the war by military means that the introduction of political considerations was almost accidental"

There is nothing in your post to support this comment. “Many may have "believed" the Japanese were ready to surrender, but a few notable high-ranking officials were not.”

Who are these notable high-ranking officials ?

the Japanese government still refused to surrender.

Due to the request for unconditional surrender and the perceived threat to the Emperor which Truman understood.
“The U.S. government was not ignorant of the importance of the Emperor to Japanese surrender. Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew had explained this to President Truman in person on May 28, 1945.”

The Postdam Proclamation had called for "Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers" (U.S. Dept. of State, Postdam 2, pg 1475).

No. At least try to read from your sources.
It demanded "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces".

In addition, the proclamation made statements that, to the Japanese, could appear threatening to the Emperor: "There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest" and "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals"

On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Postdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three- War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda- adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (Butow, pg. 200-202).

Later that day, the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body- not the Big 6, not even the Emperor- that could rule as to whether Japan could surrender. And a unamimous decision was required (Butow, pg. 176-177, 208). But again War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. The key concern for the Japanese military was loss of honor, not Japan's destruction. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned (Sigal, pg. 265-267).

What does this mean to you?

[Fleet 500]

You stop first.

I never started.

You know this how?

Obviously, he gave the go-ahead to use the A-bombs.

From your source.

the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today.

Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall thought that even after using A-bombs on Japan the invasion would still be necessary, anyway, as opposed to the belief that using atomic bombs on Japan would make the mainland invasion unnecessary

So based on this, saving further casualties played no part in the decision.

But dropping the A-bomb did prevent further casualties because the Japanese (finally) surrendered.

In a June 18, 1945 meeting with Truman and his military advisors, Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy argued that Japan should be permitted to retain the Emperor and should be given a warning of the atomic bomb in order to bring an earlier and less deadly surrender

Sounds simple and far less brutal. Especially for a country so interested in saving lives.

But McCloy had no way of knowing if it would have worked. I doubt it would have- the Japanese thought of surrendering as an ultimate disgrace.

A point made by then Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy and seconded by the then Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Captain Ellis Zacharias is of particular importance. Regarding the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, McCloy later wrote, "everyone was so intent on winning the war by military means that the introduction of political considerations was almost accidental"

I would agree with that. Everyone was war-weary (wouldn't you have been?).
It's fine to sit back 60 years later and analyze everything, but back then it wasn't possible to take 10 years to make decisions.

There is nothing in your post to support this comment. “Many may have "believed" the Japanese were ready to surrender, but a few notable high-ranking officials were not.”

Who are these notable high-ranking officials ?

Who? The ones mentioned in the parts I posted... the War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu and the Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda. All of whom refused to agree to a surrender.

“The U.S. government was not ignorant of the importance of the Emperor to Japanese surrender. Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew had explained this to President Truman in person on May 28, 1945.”

No. At least try to read from your sources.
It demanded "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces".

I already know it was an unconditional surrender. I knew it 25 years ago. I didn't say anything to the opposite.

In addition, the proclamation made statements that, to the Japanese, could appear threatening to the Emperor: "There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest" and "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals"

What does this mean to you?

I think, considering all of the agony, brutal treatment of prisoners (remember the Bataan Death March?) and all of the suffering the Japanese caused, they were lucky that the U.S. requested only an unconditional surrender and didn't turn Japan into one giant crater.

[Fleet 500]

To fly in a No-Fly Zone is a violation of the No-Fly Zone. Which is worse?

Gee... do I have to spell it out for you? I guess I do.
After the cease-fire agreement was signed in '91, there were two no-fly zones. One in northern Iraq and one in southern Iraq. Iraqi planes were not allowed to fly in those zones. To do so would be a violation of the cease-fire agreement.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

What were US planes doing in a No-Fly Zone?

and - let's be blunt here - what Iraqi Air force? they're planes had propellers - other than the ones the US gave them in the 1980 - 1988 war, then promptly bombed in 1991.

EDIT: There is one incident where the Iraqi's, on this list, violated the No-Fly Zone. there are 3 US violations. thanks for the map

[henk4]

Gee... do I have to spell it out for you? I guess I do.
After the cease-fire agreement was signed in '91, there were two no-fly zones. One in northern Iraq and one in southern Iraq. Iraqi planes were not allowed to fly in those zones. To do so would be a violation of the cease-fire agreement.

I have enjoyed to get you going on this. If you had only vaguely understood the "tongue in cheek" concept, you would had understood my first post a little better.

[Matra et Alpine]

I think, considering all of the agony, brutal treatment of prisoners (remember the Bataan Death March?) and all of the suffering the Japanese caused, they were lucky that the U.S. requested only an unconditional surrender and didn't turn Japan into one giant crater.

and how are you going to defend a future attack on the US on the basis of the brutal treatment in Guantanamo and US-backed torture in other areas along with the death of many "civilians" ?

BTW, you need to read less biased rewrites of history. Japan has NO natural resources. There never was a need to "invade" a simple blockade would bring about surrender. The role of the emperor is liek GWB Many will hang on his every word and believe it true BUT as HE was willing to discuss surrender via Russia then the Japanese woudl have fallen into line 100% if he said to surrender !!!

re "no fly zones" remember that resolution 688 did not actually request such methods. It was a UK/US "decision". Iraq were NOT legally required by ANY international law to not fly. Only by bullying tactics from US/UK/France. WHen you wre bullied did you not occasionally stand up against the person ??

[ruim20]

I bet the US will never hatch a "fight" agaisnt China.

Impressive how the US's last conflicts where sure "wins" wich naturaly became what we all know, massacres of civilians, none of them american of course wich makes it alright for the US public.

And now, after reading all of Fleets "ideias" i return to my first statement in the thread, guided by hate thuwords the US goverment and all of thoose who support their politics, i believe it's the right thing to feel, a goverment wich has brought nothing more to the world than war and death. Vicious and money hungry people, without any morale, capable of doing anything to get what they want.

Past and Present have show me that when they do one "good" thing is to cover up 10 "bad" ones. You where never the world police, you where and still are bullys.

Sorry for all the mispelling.

[cmcpokey]

And now, after reading all of Fleets "ideias" i return to my first statement in the thread, guided by hate thuwords the US goverment and all of thoose who support their politics, i believe it's the right thing to feel, a goverment wich has brought nothing more to the world than war and death. Vicious and money hungry people, without any morale, capable of doing anything to get what they want.

if that was not the MOST generalized, biased, and incorrect statement i have read on this forum would be..

satements like that make you no better. how much interaction have you had with americans, other than on here, of course? I bet none, and the way I can tell that is by those gross generalizations. Money, power hungry, with no morals? ...i cant even begin to explain how upset that makes me.

EDIT: oh yeah, notcie that most of the places the US is fighting today, are the places that Europe Fuked up years ago, and we are still trying to clean up thise messes.

[henk4]

if that was not the MOST generalized, biased, and incorrect statement i have read on this forum would be..

it would not be if Fleet was representative of the majority of Americans....

[ruim20]

if that was not the MOST generalized, biased, and incorrect statement i have read on this forum would be..

satements like that make you no better. how much interaction have you had with americans, other than on here, of course? I bet none, and the way I can tell that is by those gross generalizations. Money, power hungry, with no morals? ...i cant even begin to explain how upset that makes me.

EDIT: oh yeah, notcie that most of the places the US is fighting today, are the places that Europe Fuked up years ago, and we are still trying to clean up thise messes.

Read my post again, i'm talking about the US government and thoose who support it, if the hood fits fine by me.

And you'r doing what??? let me guess you'r making a better world for us all, jeee... thanks, thanks for bombing civilians, thanks for lying to the world in order to invade another country, thanks for being the country with the biggest debt to FMI, thanks for still making land mines, etc.

And you really think your government is fighting thoose wars to free someone or for some freedom ideal? Their fighting becouse it fills their pockets! MONEY!

[Fleet 500]

What were US planes doing in a No-Fly Zone?

and - let's be blunt here - what Iraqi Air force? they're planes had propellers - other than the ones the US gave them in the 1980 - 1988 war, then promptly bombed in 1991.

EDIT: There is one incident where the Iraqi's, on this list, violated the No-Fly Zone. there are 3 US violations. thanks for the map

For the THIRD time now, it was a no-fly zone for IRAQI planes, not U.S. Did you understand now, or do I have to keep saying it over and over again?

The Iraqis were firing at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone; a clear violation of the cease-fire agreement.

[Fleet 500]

if that was not the MOST generalized, biased, and incorrect statement i have read on this forum would be..

satements like that make you no better. how much interaction have you had with americans, other than on here, of course? I bet none, and the way I can tell that is by those gross generalizations. Money, power hungry, with no morals? ...i cant even begin to explain how upset that makes me.

EDIT: oh yeah, notcie that most of the places the US is fighting today, are the places that Europe Fuked up years ago, and we are still trying to clean up thise messes.

Right. And I'm not even going to reply to Ruim's ridiculous post.

[Pando]

ruim, please do not judge the American people by Fleet's words, he is in a small minority with his opinions.