Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

[saxon22]

Quote from dandxg:

I believe we should let Israel do it. Objectively they have more directly at stake than we do. Sure a nuclear Iran is a real threat to the US, but that freak of a president they have directly threatened Israel. I will be truly surprised if we bomb Iran and not Israel.

Correct me if I am wrong, but they already did it about 20 years ago, when Iran first tried to go nuclear. I believe if that occurs we will give Israel anything they need, short of nukes, to get the job done. If this does happen I really hope we don't get another completely unstable country in the Middle East.

How about following international law for a change? Last time I inquired, bombing a sovereign nation was highly illegal. I was not aware that the US was above the law.

 

[Brandonf]

Quote from saxon22:



Now, using your logic, are you also going to be so forgiving to the NAzis for killing 6 million Jews? Were the Germans only following orders and in order to win the war and therefore it was OK to kill all those innocent Jewish men, women and little children? I men would not that end the NAZIS struggle to win the war? Please enlighten me as to what your thoughts are on the above matters?

Killing German and Japanese civilians, causing them to no longer support their governments has a lot to do with winning a war. Killing a bunch of people (The Jews) who had no horse in the race had no strategic value to German victory, and probably diverted a ton of resources they could have otherwise used to fight the allies.

 

[saxon22]

Quote from Brandonf:

I never said we bombed Dresden early.

So why did we bomb it 12 weeks before the end of the war? What strategic purpose did it serve?

 

[BCE]

Quote from Brandonf:

Yeah, when we are at war, we should.

Just justify any action by saying this. Torture, government surveillance of it's own citizens. Any action is justified as long as we say it's because "we're at war." Is that correct? Sounds like Rumsfeld's coming out of retirement.

 

[toc]

'It was senseless, and most historians agree it was not necessary and did not help to end the war. So the US killed over 250,000 civilians and achieved what?'

It was not senseless, Germans had to pay someway for genocide committed on Jews and Russian POWs and Civilians. Same way as Japanese had to pay for genocide committed on Chinese and horrrrrrrribbbly brutal treatment of the US POWs. Also, it was calculated the 1 Million allied casualities would be faced if Tokyo was to be taken with Japanese fighting tooth and nail every step of the way.

End of the day, Germans were forgiven as a nation and so were Japanese and they both benefitted from the change in 'way of life and thinking' after WWII. So 250,000 Dresden and 100,000 A-Bomb Japanese was a very good deal recieved for finishing off 6 Million Jews and 10 Million Russian POWs + civilians and 5 Million Chinese civilians.

Russians wanted to starve Germans to death in Berlin, the way Germans starved people in Leningrad, but US air bridge of supplies thwarted that planning and put an end to WWII without any more vengeful acts.

 

[saxon22]

Quote from Brandonf:

Killing German and Japanese civilians, causing them to no longer support their governments has a lot to do with winning a war. Killing a bunch of people (The Jews) who had no horse in the race had no strategic value to German victory, and probably diverted a ton of resources they could have otherwise used to fight the allies.

Both German and Japanese people supported the fight. As a matter of fact the bombing of Dresden made German soldiers and civilians more resilient. Read some primary documents on the matter and donate that high school history book to your local recycling company.

As for the Jewish question,one could argue that a lot more resources would have to be used to monitor and police those 6 million if the NAZIS kept them alive.

Also, you state that they had "no horse in the race". Are you stating that those 6 million killed were non patriotic citizens of their countries and would not opposed the occupiers in their respective countries? Why would you say that let's say a Belgian Jew would not oppose German occupation and would cooperate with Germans as long as they as an ethnic group were not affected?

 

[Brandonf]

Quote from BCE:

Just justify any action by saying this. Torture, government surveillance of it's own citizens. Any action is justified as long as we say it's because "we're at war." Is that correct? Sounds like Rumsfeld's coming out of retirement.

Thats correct, the fact that the entire country has been infected with your attitude is why we have not won a single real conflict since WW2. Before that people had a willingness to do what was required, even make personal sacrafices. Now.......

 

[wilburbear]

Recently, many people use the term "Nazi" when attempting to describe something so evil, that their brain runs out of descriptors. Many of these same people insist we not take military action against Iran - who are the new Nazis. They even wish to attack the same group of people.

You can't surf channels on cable TV without documentaries about the Nazi's, with commentators lamenting the fact that the people of that time failed to see the threat. Yet, here we are again, within the span of a single life time, scratching our heads, wondering what to do with a state whose goal is to "incinerate Isreal".

 

[Brandonf]

Quote from saxon22:

Both German and Japanese people supported the fight. As a matter of fact the bombing of Dresden made German soldiers and civilians more resilient. Read some primary documents on the matter and donate that high school history book to your local recycling company.

As for the Jewish question,one could argue that a lot more resources would have to be used to monitor and police those 6 million if the NAZIS kept them alive.

Also, you state that they had "no horse in the race". Are you stating that those 6 million killed were non patriotic citizens of their countries and would not opposed the occupiers in their respective countries? Why would you say that let's say a Belgian Jew would not oppose German occupation and would cooperate with Germans as long as they as an ethnic group were not affected?

Why is it that when a person can not win an arguement based upon the facts then they start twisting and word fucking what you say?

 

[dandxg]

Quote from saxon22:

How about following international law for a change? Last time I inquired, bombing a sovereign nation was highly illegal. I was not aware that the US was above the law.

True, is that not why we attacked Iraq the first time. Under the guise of protecting Kuwaitt a sovereign country?

I consider myself a pramatic, objective person. I would much rather the US military attack Iran than Iraq. It makes more sense. For that much North Korea too. Why not NK, because China would not tolerate that at all.

Part of me fears that we have seen the begining of WWIII, seriously. Is Russian and China just going to stand back and allow their major trading partners to get attacked by the US? Probably not. We are streched thin and the chances of us really using a nuke, I don't think so.