Quote:

---

Originally posted by KPO:
I think it's widely accepted now that this view is the result of Allied propoganda, who wanted to spare the emperor and the japanese people. From the article I linked earlier:

---

Quote:

---

You say quite correctly that it was possible that hundreds of thousands could have been spared - it depends how much you value upholding justice.

---

Quote:

---

It's hard to put an acceptable figure on it, and you must remember that enemy civilian lives were quite cheap in the minds of military commanders at that point in time.

---

Quote:

---

The devestation and number of casualties was not so much greater than the firebombing missions of other Japanese and German cities sanctioned by other presidents before him, so he already had a precedent.

---

Quote:

---

I'd say we are rightly more sensitive to these things these days.

---

Quote:

---

Now now AU I never said you did say that. However knowing the way you like to go on it sounded like that *could* be what you were trying to say, which is why I asked you to clarify your point because it wasn't at all clear

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen: I merely asked you to clarify your point, which frankly sounded like a snarky "you Brits burned German cities" reply and you threw your toys out of the pram, but try to make yourself look like the "bigger man" if you wish. I know how much that means too you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen: Prior to AU's attempt at revisionist history:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen: When you make baseless accusations without backing them up and spend more time doing it than making your meagre poorly reasoned point that’s when you reach your average every day level of tedium, for AURaptor that is

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, that is EXACTLY what you did.

---

Quote:

---

And further more, you clearly DON'T know what I say.

---

Quote:

---

I just give you straight answers, and you seem to have a problem w/ that.

---

Quote:

---

It 'sounded like' only to you, because you hear/see / read only what you WANT to.

---

Quote:

---

You waited a full 2 minutes after my earlier post

---

Quote:

---

while I decided to give a different response . I had no way of knowing you'd be instantly replying to my message.

---

Quote:

---

You DO know that you can uncheck the box that sends you an e-mail for each and every reply, don't you? Meh, I guess you live for such stuff. Good for you.

---

Quote:

---

You seldom pay attention, you only see what you WANT to see.
...
There's other voices in your head, since I know you're not responding to what I post.
...
Until then, stop projecting your faults and foilbles onto others.

---

Quote:

---

If and when I ever fail to back up any of my claims, you let me know, ok ?

---

Quote:

---

Ok. AURaptor you've failed to back up any of your claims.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Now lastly do you have a response to what I said on the topic we were discussing or would you prefer to carry on making an arse of yourself?
Guess that's a no then.

AURaptor you've failed to back up any of your claims. If you'd like to direct me to any of you supporting statements though, go ahead.

E-mail notification, gotta love it.

Now back to what I was doing, see how much time it saves

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


As things stand , we're not going to nuke Iran. No need to, doubt it would achieve anything positive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BlazeSolo:
Kill'em all let Allah sort'em out !!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted AURaptor:
And, yes, once again, I've already backed up the earlier claim. And like clock work, you ignore it. Do us all a favor and scroll up. Read slowly , if you need to this time.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe if you jingled a set of keys in front of your face, you'd distract yourself and forget about posting your tedium over and over again.

---

Quote:

---

As things stand , we're not going to nuke Iran. No need to, doubt it would achieve anything positive.

---

Quote:

---

toying w/ a mental midge that is citizen has become boring.

---

Quote:

---

citizen is a hapless git w/ delusions of grandeur.

---

Quote:

---

we didn't want to set fire to city after city in Japan

---

Quote:

---

The first use of napalm occurred on July 23, 1944, during pre-invasion air strikes on the island of Tinian, part of the Marianas island chain in the Pacific. It was used by the Allied Forces in World War II against cities in Japan. The primary dispersment of napalm was through the usage of 165-gallon containers. The bombs were longer than a tin can, but about as big around. They fell to earth trailing cloth tails that fluttered behind them. A single firebomb dropped from an airplane at low-altitude was capable of producing damage to a 2500-yd2 area. In targeted Japanese cities, napalm bombs burned out 40% of the land area. In a Japanese residential neighborhoods with wood and paper houses, there was no way to fight the fires. On March 9 and 10, 1945, US forces dropped more than 1,500 tons of napalm bombs, all produced at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, on Tokyo. The resulting firestorm destroyed enormous sections of the city.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Ahh, Sleezer,
Ever the disinformation specialist. Pretty bold of you to include the link so that others could read the entire page. Do you count on people not linking and actually reading?

---

Quote:

---

While the triad of defense objectives has remained the same (under the title 'Continuations of Previous Policy'), large elements are different - under the title "Departures from Previous Nuclear Policy".

For example, bunker-buster bombs were developed without nuclear bombs. They were developed with lots and lots (thousands of tons - kilo tons - KT) of high-power conventional explosives. That was to study how many KT TNT equivalent it would take to penetrate a bunker. These equivalencies could then be used to calculate the equivalent nuclear bomb.
The report goes on to say "The DOD and NNSA are studying both nuclear and conventional weapons systems for these missions. Critics are concerned that this research could lead to new nuclear testing."

---

Quote:

---

"Departures from Previous Nuclear Policy

The new NPR primarily departs from past nuclear policy by downplaying and, in key instances, repudiating arms control agreements. The stated objective of this policy is to give the United States maximum flexibility.

While the Clinton administration worked to preserve the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the Bush administration renounced this treaty expressly to remove limits on missile defense development. However, missile defense tests will not reach those limits for several years. Although the Clinton administration supported limited missile defense systems, the new NPR calls for expanding and increasing the layers of these defenses.

The previous administration advocated ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Though the present administration adheres to the nuclear testing moratorium, it will not seek passage of the CTBT. The new NPR also proposes to reduce the time required to prepare for renewed testing from a two-to-three-year period to much less than one year."

---