:rolleyes:Quote:
What's the difference between an unprovoked attack and a pre-emptive strike?
:rolleyes:Quote:
What's the difference between an unprovoked attack and a pre-emptive strike?
Here's another one :
Never got an answer to that oneQuote:
What would the US have done about terrorist groups if 9/11 didn't happen.
If you see a snake lying on the driveway and shoot it that is an unprovoked attack.
If you see a snake coiled up in strike position and your child is walking towards it and you shoot the snake, that is a preemptive strike.
Quote:
Originally posted by MerrionComputin
If you see a snake lying on the driveway and shoot it that is an unprovoked attack.
If you see a snake coiled up in strike position and your child is walking towards it and you shoot the snake, that is a preemptive strike.
Ok, now in the context of the current international situation?
:rolleyes:
That is in the context of the current international situation. It's just a metaphor. Or is it simile. Or irony. Whatever.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Ok, now in the context of the current international situation?
:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Brown
That is in the context of the current international situation. It's just a metaphor. Or is it simile. Or irony. Whatever.
That depends on what you define as the coiled up snake.
And is it poisonous?
The snake lying on the path represents countries such as India and Pakistan that have developed but are not threatening the US (or her oil rich children) with them.
The snake coiled and ready to strike represents Iraq which is building weapons of mass destruction so as to strike at Saudi Arabia and Israel.
But didn't the UN inspectors say that Iraq's
WMD and WME were pretty much all gone, or least reduce to the
point where they were no real threat to anyone.
that is to say the knowledge is still there but not the ability to use it.
Its all the same marketing ploy. Pre-emptive strikes tend to bring in more hot chicks at the after party, though.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
:rolleyes:Quote:
What's the difference between an unprovoked attack and a pre-emptive strike?
:)
You have to bear in mind that the US was attacked with practically no warning and thousands of people died live on CNN. This has had a profound effect on their psyche in a way that other countries which were not attacked find difficult to understand. However, the fact is that America has the right to be scared of the actions and intentions of Sadam Hussein and the UN is not a sufficient guarantor as far as the US is concerned.
I just don't think that military action is the way to go.
Military strikes these days involve destroying utilities like power
stations, water supply etc.
This results in ordinary people suffering the most and these
people have suffered enough with a bad leader, sanctions and bombings.
If Saddam's life and leadership is put at risk he will do anything
he can to leave behind total chaos. The most obvious choice is
to attack Israel. He did this the last time but they refrained from
counterattacking, Given Sharon's current bloodlust and Israel's
nuclear capability things could end up slightly pear shaped to say the least.
1. The American public had no warning....Quote:
Originally posted by MerrionComputin
You have to bear in mind that the US was attacked with practically no warning ...
2. There is no evidence (and neither will their be) to suggest that the FBI/Security services had advance warning
3. There is no evidence (and neither will their be) to suggest that they [the security peeps] didn't have prior knowlegde....
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhht.... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
It is only unprovoked if the other guy doen't deserve it. That is pretty much how it is defined in my military booklet.
Hmmm ...
Right ... If I'm doing things that don't concern or harm you in anyway but nevertheless get on your nerves (out of jealousy or whatever) I'm provoking you because you think I deserve it by whatever standards you employ ?
Never knew I had to consult you for every potential harmful conduct I might undertake in the near or distant future.
Remind me again who makes up the rules ...
Seppos apparently...Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Remind me again who makes up the rules ...
:rolleyes:
Remind me again who's used the only nuclear weapon in human history? Remind me who build the bloody thing in the first place?
:rolleyes:
Okay, let's be fair...there were two of them. :pQuote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Remind me again who's used the only nuclear weapon in human history?
Thanks for reminding me! :)Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
Okay, let's be fair...there were two of them. :p
Actually the firebombing of Tokyo killed more with conventional weapons than the 2 bombs that were dropped on Japan (not combined but separately). The bombs dropped on Japan were pretty tame compared to the kind of devastation a modern nuke can achieve.
And I think its a good thing that they were dropped. It brought a quick end to a long and bloody conflict in the Pacific and it showed just how horrible those weapons are so that they may never be used again.
As for going into Iraq I am against it. I do believe that doing so could be the start of something that can spread to surrounding countries. Saddam will likely target Israel with chemical and bio weapons if he knows the US is specifically coming for him. Hes the type to want to go out by bringing everyone down around him.
There are other ways to get him out of power. Invading Iraq is a huge mistake.
MerrionComputing
Right, how could people in other countries possible understand what it is like to see people dying from terrorist attacks? :rolleyes:Quote:
You have to bear in mind that the US was attacked with practically no warning and thousands of people died live on CNN. This has had a profound effect on their psyche in a way that other countries which were not attacked find difficult to understand.
What is more, most of the world was watching the exact same footage of what happened that the American people were.
Wouldn't it be better to make sure your child doesn't walk towards the snake?Quote:
If you see a snake coiled up in strike position and your child is walking towards it and you shoot the snake, that is a preemptive strike.
This snake was actually clubbed nearly to death some ten years ago and, during it's docile period that followed, it even allowed us to look inside it's mouth and inspect it's teeth. Now it has regained it's wits somewhat, it won't let us look in it's mouth anymore.
But that was a long time ago. It's been sitting there for some time and we haven't looked in it's mouth for so long, we aren't even sure if it's teeth have grown back. Despite not actually making any threatening movements either, we have decided that it needs a damn good clubbing once again...
I don't think the civilian population of Japan at the time wouldQuote:
Xanith
And I think its a good thing that they were dropped. It brought a quick end to a long and bloody conflict in the Pacific
agree with you on it being a good thing or there descendants
who suffer the after affects from radiation, even after the war had ended.
As for it bringing the war to a swift end, it is generally believed
by historians that the Japanese were loooking for peace before the bombs were dropped.
And that dropping the bombs was an experiment with human guinea pigs to see what would happen.
Historians generally accept that Russia moving troops east, 2 whole armies I believe, was the main reason Japan surrendered. They were terrified what the Russins would do.Quote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
As for it bringing the war to a swift end, it is generally believed
by historians that the Japanese were loooking for peace before the bombs were dropped.
And that dropping the bombs was an experiment with human guinea pigs to see what would happen.
Please, let's not get bogged down in another "Was it right to nuke the Japanese..." debate again. :rolleyes:
At the end of the day, none of us really know whether Japan would have surrendered without a fight had they not been nuked. That's just one of those great hypothetical questions that we'll never know the answer to.
So you define historical knowledge as a hypothetical question?
Why don't you agree with it?
Who's historical knowledge?
How does anybody other than the person who took the fateful decision (and he's dead) know what the factors considered were?
It is mere speculation.
Disagree with what? I didn't disagree with anything.Quote:
Why don't you agree with it?
My mistake should have read as 'Why, don't you agree with it?'
Documents from the time state that the Japanese miltary command were more concerned with Russia possibly invading northern China, then Japan, than they were with the effects of the 2 A-bombs.
The Japanese even made enquiries about surrender before the bombs were dropped.
They are simple facts.
GlenW
I don't think there is any such thing when it comes to history...Quote:
They are simple facts.
As for your theory, It does seem highly improbable that the Japanese would be more worried about Russia invading northern China than they would be about having their cities systematically destroyed by nuclear weapons...
But that's just idle speculation of course... ;)
Of course you have taken into account the latent tensions between the two countries following the battle at Port Arthur and the long standing arguments over Sakhalin. Then discounted them.
Well I know that Russia and Japan had been squabbling over Manchuria for years before the war but I still don't see how the prospect of one of you foreign territories being invaded by conventional russian forces would be more scary than the prospect of the systematic destruction of your home cities by nuclear weapons. It just doesn't add up in my book.
But then my book has it's own rules...
It was the threat of Russia invading Japan that was the problem, but not to normal people, I did say it was the military command that made the decision.
I couldn't agree with you more, but the Japanese command didn't think like you or me.
It is an historical fact that all the upper echelons of thier armed forces, who agreed to the surrender, cited Russia as their main reason for doing so.
As I said, I don't believe there is any such thing as historical facts...
If we will come to a concensus that American foreign policty is volatile, and that Bush is a golden idiot, I want UN weapons inspectors in the US.
BUT OH NO THAT CAN'T HAPPEN CAUSE GOOD OL UNCLE SAM WILL NEVER HAVE IT BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY'RE THE BEST AND ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A RATS ARSE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK.
I think we should level the playing field. Introduce a salary cap, and redraft the entire world.
Its like Major League Baseball vs. the NFL
-C
Werent there 3 atomic bombs dropped during WWII? The first on an un-inhabited island, as a demonstration, then the two actually on Japan? Or am I on crack?
Z.
And the frickin networks here have decided to run it all again in 11/9/02 'special'. ****ing ******s. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
[B]
Right, how could people in other countries possible understand what it is like to see people dying from terrorist attacks? :rolleyes:
What is more, most of the world was watching the exact same footage of what happened that the American people were.
I like that. :DQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Wouldn't it be better to make sure your child doesn't walk towards the snake?
This snake was actually clubbed nearly to death some ten years ago and, during it's docile period that followed, it even allowed us to look inside it's mouth and inspect it's teeth. Now it has regained it's wits somewhat, it won't let us look in it's mouth anymore.
But that was a long time ago. It's been sitting there for some time and we haven't looked in it's mouth for so long, we aren't even sure if it's teeth have grown back. Despite not actually making any threatening movements either, we have decided that it needs a damn good clubbing once again...
Well, I guess that makes it alright then. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Actually the firebombing of Tokyo killed more with conventional weapons than the 2 bombs that were dropped on Japan (not combined but separately). The bombs dropped on Japan were pretty tame compared to the kind of devastation a modern nuke can achieve.
(Nagasaki)Quote:
Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
the bombing of hiroshima and nagowsaki(excuse my spelling) was probably the second most horrendous act the US has ever commited in its history.
And what was the first?
I consider the trail of tears worse.
Just had a quick read up on that one. Yeah, that seems pretty much more disgusting. I guess I'll agree with that to some extent.
Yep. Because all of us were alive back then. We care deeply about what happened 190 years ago. Seems like only last week. There I was having my tea and scones in the Drawing room when Jeeves came in and gave us the bad news. I remember it well.Quote:
Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
And I know that I will be attacked at British forums for saying this: Sounds like you're still sore from 1812.
July 17 - Potsdam conference
July 26 - Groves issues directive to 509 group - bg
Aug. 6 - Hiroshima - 20 kiloton Little Boy killed 80,000
Aug. 8 - Russia declared war on Japan - map
Aug. 9 - Nagasaki - 22 kiloton Fat Man kills 70,000
Aug. 15 - Emperor surrender broadcast - VJ Day
???????????