Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 04-01-2003, 12:31 AM

If I understand your OP correctly, you are trying to find out if the reasons for the current bombing of Baghdad are morally equivalent to the bombing of cities which went on in WWII?

I can't see any reason for finding equivalence between the two. The Germans had declared war on the US and were a global threat. Iraq is neither.

I hope my comment isn't off topic: Will not the outside world, especially the Arab part, see the US bombing in Iraq as proof of the immorality of the US invasion, regardless of whether this war succeeds in toppling a vicious dictator?

Quite so. I think that we haven't bombed cities, though, the way we did in WWII.

And, given that terrorists already view themselves as being morally superior to Americans, Israelis, etc., is there not a possibility that bombing Iraq will eventually lead to greater loss of life, if one factors in the sure-to-follow increase in terrorist attacks?

Yes. Did you see that Musharaf in Pakistan is now viewed as a totally American puppet and that the radicals are strengthened there, as everywhere? What if those fruitcake Muslims topple the Pakistan government and get their hands on nuclear weapons and use them against either US troops in Iraq (as I would) or worse, against Washington?

Vorkosigan

Giorgia · 04-01-2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Giorgia

If I understand your OP correctly, you are trying to find out if the reasons for the current bombing of Baghdad are morally equivalent to the bombing of cities which went on in WWII?

Originally posted by Vorkosigan

I can't see any reason for finding equivalence between the two. The Germans had declared war on the US and were a global threat. Iraq is neither.

----------------------
Dear Vork,

My question was actually directed to "the cave," in re the intentions of his/her original post.

To answer you, though, I feel that, while Iraq may not officially be "at war" with the US, I do believe that the Am/Anglo/Aus coalition's defense of the invasion claims that Iraq is a global threat.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will not the outside world, especially the Arab part, see the US bombing in Iraq as proof of the immorality of the US invasion, regardless of whether this war succeeds in toppling a vicious dictator?

Quite so. I think that we haven't bombed cities, though, the way we did in WWII.

----------------------

In my opinion, the only differences are that Iraq doesn't have as many cities as heavily-industrialized Germany did, and that the targeting-abilities of modern-day bombs are (if I understand other posts correctly) more accurate than those used in WWII.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, given that terrorists already view themselves as being morally superior to Americans, Israelis, etc., is there not a possibility that bombing Iraq will eventually lead to greater loss of life, if one factors in the sure-to-follow increase in terrorist attacks?

Yes. Did you see that Musharaf in Pakistan is now viewed as a totally American puppet and that the radicals are strengthened there, as everywhere? What if those fruitcake Muslims topple the Pakistan government and get their hands on nuclear weapons and use them against either US troops in Iraq (as I would) or worse, against Washington?

----------------------

While I personally wouldn't characterize all Muslims as "fruitcakes," your scenario certainly could happen. After that, what logic would stand in the way of Israel lobbing a few against Syria?

seanie · 04-01-2003, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgia
While I personally wouldn't characterize all Muslims as "fruitcakes," your scenario certainly could happen. After that, what logic would stand in the of Israel lobbing a few against Syria?

I think he was only referring that small subset of radicals as "fruitcakes."

the_cave · 04-01-2003, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Can you possibly give me one example of a war for which this is not also true?

Amen-Moses

Sure: the current Gulf War, before which our Congress gave majority approval for the President to use whatever means necessary to enforce the Iraqi obligations towards the UN and the US.

What I'm saying is that in a representative government, the actions of a freely elected government (and yes, Bush was freely elected, and I'd be happy to explain why) are far different from a government which took power by coup and military repression.

Arbogast · 04-01-2003, 06:47 AM

The Nazis were a black and white situation, unlike murkier current events. Current events are apples and oranges.

And, although some Germans didnt deserve it I will grant, for the most part, the Nazis and the German people were the inseperable if you wanted to defeat the Nazis. The tragedy of the Anglo American bombing campaign on the Third Reich, was that it was not MORE devastating, hence bringing the war to a swifter conclusion.

And the Nazis were impossible without the willing support of a majority of Germans.

Also, I was innaccurate when I said the Germans got what they deserved. If the German people got what they deserved, the following would have occured.

a> First, all highly educated and talented Germans would have been sent to concentration camps to rid the population of troublemakers.
b> The food supply of the German people would have been cut off, to pacify the overpopulation of the inferior German race and make room for British, American and Soviet settlers.
c> All Germans that complained, resisted or organized in any fashion would need to be rounded up and sent to Work (ahem), I mean Concntration Camps. Remember Arbeit Macht Frei.
d> All Germans suspected of sympathizing with group C now need to be rounded up, remember, Arbeit Macht Frei.
e> Now that we are making progress on the "German Problem", and the "Endlosung" (do I use the correct phrase?) is in sight, we can decide what to do the the remaining Germans. Some can remain in Special Ghettos for Germans. We will need a few menial laborers to do the jobs beneath the new citizens of New Britain, New America, New Russia (formerly known as Deutschland). Another group can be shipped off to the Soviet Union, America and Britain to work as slaves. Unfortunately, it is too expensive to feed them properly, and they are lazy and useless anyway, so they will die. Remember, "Arbeit Macht Frei".
A third group, because there are still too many of this inferior German race, will just have to be sent off to Concentration Camps. Unfortunately, there are too many people in the Work camps. I guess we will have to quietly gas them and burn them in ovens so no guards get sick. Remember, "Arbeit Macht Frei".
f> Now, we are in business, all that is needed now are some laws to prevent the Germans from breeding, you know, they multiply like rats, and they are sneaky.

No, the adult Germans of the Third Reich era do not deserve much sympathy.
Now for the ultimate insult on that generation. The Germans of the Third Reich were so inhumane, even Joseph Stalin was a humanitarian in comparison. If you doubt it, reread instructions a-f.

I have alot of respect for the modern German generation, but the German adult generation of the WW2 era was one of the most disgusting collections of humanity ever assembled in modern European history. There were alot of worthless people living in Germany in that era, and the world is better off so many of them were butchered by the allies.

the_cave · 04-01-2003, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Giorgia
Dear Cave:

If I understand your OP correctly, you are trying to find out if the reasons for the current bombing of Baghdad are morally equivalent to the bombing of cities which went on in WWII?

Not specifically, but it's certainly a relevant question.

Quote:

I hope my comment isn't off topic: Will not the outside world, especially the Arab part, see the US bombing in Iraq as proof of the immorality of the US invasion, regardless of whether this war succeeds in toppling a vicious dictator?

I have no idea. Maybe so, maybe not. There are a few dozen countries who support our actions, including a handful of Arab nations. There are also clearly many nations who do not support our actions, including Arab nations.

Quote:

And, given that terrorists already view themselves as being morally superior to Americans, Israelis, etc., is there not a possibility that bombing Iraq will eventually lead to greater loss of life, if one factors in the sure-to-follow increase in terrorist attacks?

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how serious a threat to security you think Saddam's Iraq is.

Arbogast · 04-01-2003, 07:12 AM

Another reason I am greatful the Third Reich was hammered without mercy.

Georgia, USA is a very nice place.

The Germans would have turned it into a H3II Hole.

There would have been concentration camps in Georgia, California, Iowa, New York, Massachussetts, etc, etc..

All the nice Jewish and African American neighbors would not be here. The Nazis would have put them in Concentration Camps.

Vorkosigan · 04-01-2003, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arbogast
There were alot of worthless people living in Germany in that era, and the world is better off so many of them were butchered by the allies.

Arbogast, if it is attention you want, why don't you take up juggling or buy an expensive sports car?

Vorkosigan

Arbogast · 04-01-2003, 07:35 AM

There were alot of worthless people living in Germany in that era, and the world is better off so many of them were butchered by the allies.

It is an accurate statement...

There does seem to be some collective memory loss as to why the allies were ruthlessly exterminating every German soldier, and every civilian who was working to support the Third Reich death machine.

phaedrus · 04-02-2003, 02:02 AM

Vork

The whole issue boils down to the question that � Did they consider all means (peaceful and military) before dropping the bombs? Can we say with certainty this was done?

If the sole objective was to just to limit American casualties, one could look back and say, maybe it was justified from an American point of view, who cared about Japanese savages, the civilians most probably were like their military counterparts�.total psychos.

This shifts the discussion to a very personal, moral sentiment: do we agree with how Truman valued Japanese civilians vs. American soldiers?

*While some places lingo could be offensive, me is just reacting to your tone*

-----

I agree, which is why I adopted my current position. I, like you, used to be a dupe of this Japanese fascist propaganda.

But you current position seems to boil down to �what I don�t like is propaganda and what I like it the truth�

Guess generally what sort of people adopt that approach?

all of this is common knowledge �Vwell, OK, the tunnel system is not. It's existence has been suppressed by Japanese power-war propaganda. An account of it may be found in McCormack��s The Emptiness of Japanese Affluence beginning on page 253

Just curious, what exactly was McCormack�s book was all about (economics and politics?) and what was his line of expertise?

Bix has argued that the Emperor ended the war because he did not want to be trapped in such a complex with fanatic officers who would have killed him rather than surrender, and because he was obsessed with the safety of the Imperial regalia, which despite the many miles of tunnels, would not all fit(!).

Argued but proven? Now lets see�if there is a country which is being invaded, realizes its beaten and wants to end the war in a peaceful manner but is �suspicious or unsure � of the opposition�s intentions, what will they do? They will try to bolster their defenses to the best they can. Isnt that obvious? Or you think all countries will give up their sovereignty in face of certain defeat? (just like these chaps thought Iraq will capitulate. )

As for the core of millions of civilians who were training with fake mines and bamboo poles, and the sequestering of aircraft (figures range from 5,000 to 12,000), that is all so well known I am sort of surprised you don't know it. John Ray Skates, whose sober work The Invasion of Japan is rather widely cited, notes "Whatever the precise numbers, beyond question the Japanese planned to use kamikazes on a massive and unprecedented scale.�� (see his extremely detailed chapter on troop deployments and Japanese plans for homeland defense) Large numbers of suicide boats were also produced, along with human torpedoes.

Why do I see a blatant attempt to do selective reading from a book? Skates�lets see�.You like his work right? The maybe you should �read� it. Here is a review, which should give you an overall feel about what the book actually says�(that bombing might not have been necessary). And how at the Potsdam conference itself Truman approved the public statement�.that smacks of a person looking for �peaceful� solutions?

Quote:

Could both the dropping of the atomic bombs or an invasion of Japan have been prevented through a loosening of the surrender terms? Professor Skates does not discuss this in any great detail, but in July 1945, the Japanese had attempted to use both the Swedish and Soviet governments as intermediaries to end the war with the United States. Both President Truman and Secretary Stimson were aware of these Japanese feelers, but Truman still refused to approve of any private or public modification of the unconditional surrender terms. Instead, on July 25, while at the Potsdam Conference with Churchill and Stalin, Truman issued orders that the first atomic bomb was to be dropped any time after August 3. On July 26, the Potsdam Declaration was issued, stating: "We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces. . . . The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Thus, the last avenue to end the war before the dropping of the atomic bombs was closed. Eight months after the end of the war, U.S. intelligence officers on the army general staff undertook a "what if" study of an invasion of Japan."They concluded," Professor Skates tells us, "that the failure of these [Japanese peace] efforts [through their embassy in Moscow] and the sudden Soviet declaration of war on 9 August would have been sufficient, even without the atomic bombs, to end the war. However, in the unlikely event that the Japanese continued in the war after the entry of the USSR, and OLYMPIC had been launched, 'The island of Kyushu would have been occupied in not over two months at a cost of 75,000 to 100,000 casualties.' In that case, concluded the analysts, the war would have ended no later than 15 February, 1946, and Coronet would not have been necessary. This author's study of the record," concludes Professor Skates, "leads to similar conclusions."

emphasis mine

You like only those parts of the book, which will help in reducing the guilt?

And were you aware of the following ?

Quote:

"An entry of the Soviet Union into the war would finally convince the Japanese of the inevitability of complete defeat. Although individual Japanese willingly sacrifice themselves in the service of the nation, we doubt that the nation as a whole is predisposed toward national suicide. Rather, the Japanese as a nation have a strong concept of national survival, regardless of the fate of individuals. They would probably prefer national survival, even through surrender, to virtual extinction.
The ideas of foreign occupation of the Japanese homeland, foreign custody of the person of the Emperor, and the loss of prestige entailed by the acceptance of `unconditional surrender� are most revolting to the Japanese. To avoid these conditions, IF POSSIBLE, and, IN ANY EVENT, to insure the survival of the institution of the Emperor, the Japanese might well be willing to withdraw from all the territory they have seized on the Asiatic continent and in the southern Pacific, and even to agree to the independence of Korea and to the practical disarmament of their military forces. A conditional surrender by the Japanese government along the lines stated above might be offered by them at any time from now until the time of the complete destruction of all Japanese power of resistance." [Emphasis added. 8 July 1945, "Estimate of the Enemy Situation (as of 6 July 1945). Reported by the Combined Intelligence Committee." C.C.S. 643/3]

Now what?
Congratulations! You've become a dupe of both Japanese and US propaganda. The Survey wrote that because it wanted to play up its role so as to secure additional funding after the war, arguing that Strategic Air Power alone won the war against Japan. Like you the Survey has yet to present any convincing scenario for the end of the war without the A-bombs

Ahh the ignorance is so appalling. Very convenient to label it as propaganda, right? You have some evidence that this survey was doctored or as usual just your words? Err�convincing scenario for the end of the war was, seriously consider peaceful means, instead of trying to ward off Russia or test the new toy. The survey clearly indicates the problems the peace group had in Japan. The survey had interviewed the survivors and not you !!

As I said, the Japanese plan, discussed in detail in many books, was a complete fantasy based on Soviet mediation, which the Soviets had no intention of doing, and which the Japanese sought as a cease fire with troops in place. See, for example, the extensive discussion of this fantasy in Toland's The Rising Sun in the section on Peace that begins around page 900. Hirota, the Japanese special rep to Moscow and Joseph Malik are talking..<snip> This includes not only blatant failures like the three attempts in Sweden, but also the neglect of the Zacharias broadcasts, which carefully explained to Japan the meaning of "unconditional surrender" (the actual texts were the brainchild of Ellis Zacharias, who knew Japan well, and the novelist Ladislas Farago). Toland provides Sato's cable on the USSR on page

Umm�you don�t get it don�t you? When I provided the whole telegram list, why are you offering me one cable out of the whole bunch?

And Zacharias was mentioned in a telegram sent by togo (on july 25th) you can find the same link provided earlier. � For instance, on the 19th [21st] Captain Zacharias --although a member of the United States Office of War Information he broadcasts to Japan as a spokesman for the United States Government--disclosed the substance of surrender terms, saying that Japan had two choices to make. One was to submit to a dictated peace after the complete destruction of Japan; the other, to accept unconditional surrender and receive benefits under the Atlantic Charter. This is considered simple propaganda strategy. Although it is not definitely stated, this is to a certain degree understood to be a means of encouraging surrender. Nevertheless, special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter. As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter. The difficult point is the attitude of the enemy, who continues to insist on the formality of unconditional surrender emphasis mine

And sato replied on july 28 I have no way of knowing the extent of the authority given to Captain Zacharias in his broadcast. His word, however, that Japan shall receive the benefit of the Atlantic Charter is in contradiction to the attitude taken by England and the United States when they rejected German participation under the said Charter prior to her surrender

On July 30th , sako sent a cable detailing his conversation with Lozovsky

Quote:

I fully understand the circumstances. However, the three countries --Great Britain, the United States, and China--issued a joint declaration against Japan on the 26th, pressing unconditional surrender on Japan. Unconditional surrender is, after all, out of the question for the Japanese Government. Our view remains the same as was stated on the 13th, at our meeting before that last. If is is possible to avoid such a formula, however, Japan desires to end the war, with an extremely conciliatory attitude, so long as Japan is guaranteed the nation's honor and existence. For this purpose we asked the Soviet Government for assistance.

Sato was the Japanese man in Moscow, who understood exactly that the Soviet venture was a fantasy. This cable, by the way, was, like all other Japanese diplomatic communications, read by the Americans. BTW, this cable was sent in response to the Konoye visit you referenced in the earlier post. In other words, intelligent Japanese diplomats understood that the Konoye visit was pure fantasy.

Err�maybe instead of just relying on the book or your �notions� you should read the telegrams instead. And don�t know how you interpreted the cable amounting to sato knowing that the soviet venture was a failure and �intelligent Japanese diplomats thinking that that visit was a fantasy. You are a psychic or something?

After the sato�s telegram, this was sent by togo

Quote:

We cannot accept unconditional surrender (understood fully your telegram No. 1416) in any situation. Although it is apparent that there will be more casualties on both sides in case the war is prolonged, we will stand united as one nation against the enemy if the enemy forcibly demands our unconditional surrender. It is, however, our intention to achieve, with Soviet assistance, a peace which is not of unconditional nature, in order to avoid such a situation as mentioned above in accordance with His Majesty's desire. It will be necessary for us to expert our utmost efforts to have the United States and Great Britain understand thoroughly this intention. Thus, it is impossible at this time to ask the Soviet Union unconditionally for assistance in obtaining peace; at the same time, it is also impossible and to our disadvantage to indicate the concrete conditions immediately at this time on account of internal and external relations. Under such delicate circumstances, we hope to have Prince Konoye transmit to the Soviet Union our concrete intentions based on the Emperor's wishes and following a conference to have the Soviets deal with the United States and Great Britain, while considering the Soviet demands in Asia

And how special envoy thing got shaken by the Potsdam declaration�this � The position taken by the Soviet Union in Connection with the Potsdam joint declaration made by Great Britain, the United States, and Chungking will henceforth have a bearing on our planning and will be a very important problem. When we consider that details of every conference (Quebec , Cairo, etc.) held by the above three countries have been supplied to the Soviet Union, it is not difficult to imagine that the Soviet Union will have detailed knowledge of the recent joint declaration.

2. However, we have been awaiting the Soviet reply regarding the dispatch of the special envoy and we cannot help but have doubts that there may be some connection between the new joint declaration and our request. Is there no connection at all between the new joint declaration and the above-mentioned request: Also, did or did not the Soviet Government inform England and the United States of tour above-mentioned request? And what steps will the Soviet side take against the Japanese Empire from now on? These questions will all remain of interest to our side.

And as you so happily agree, when American knew about what the �Japanese� concerns are, shouldn�t they have addressed them instead of insisting on �unconditional� ?

And if you still don�t get it �here is what Zacharias himself wrote �How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender� This could give some insight into how the same man looked at the efforts and about US�s knowledge of the peace feelers.

04-01-2003, 06:47 AM	#75
Arbogast Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Athens, Ga, USA Posts: 61	Well The Nazis were a black and white situation, unlike murkier current events. Current events are apples and oranges. And, although some Germans didnt deserve it I will grant, for the most part, the Nazis and the German people were the inseperable if you wanted to defeat the Nazis. The tragedy of the Anglo American bombing campaign on the Third Reich, was that it was not MORE devastating, hence bringing the war to a swifter conclusion. And the Nazis were impossible without the willing support of a majority of Germans. Also, I was innaccurate when I said the Germans got what they deserved. If the German people got what they deserved, the following would have occured. a> First, all highly educated and talented Germans would have been sent to concentration camps to rid the population of troublemakers. b> The food supply of the German people would have been cut off, to pacify the overpopulation of the inferior German race and make room for British, American and Soviet settlers. c> All Germans that complained, resisted or organized in any fashion would need to be rounded up and sent to Work (ahem), I mean Concntration Camps. Remember Arbeit Macht Frei. d> All Germans suspected of sympathizing with group C now need to be rounded up, remember, Arbeit Macht Frei. e> Now that we are making progress on the "German Problem", and the "Endlosung" (do I use the correct phrase?) is in sight, we can decide what to do the the remaining Germans. Some can remain in Special Ghettos for Germans. We will need a few menial laborers to do the jobs beneath the new citizens of New Britain, New America, New Russia (formerly known as Deutschland). Another group can be shipped off to the Soviet Union, America and Britain to work as slaves. Unfortunately, it is too expensive to feed them properly, and they are lazy and useless anyway, so they will die. Remember, "Arbeit Macht Frei". A third group, because there are still too many of this inferior German race, will just have to be sent off to Concentration Camps. Unfortunately, there are too many people in the Work camps. I guess we will have to quietly gas them and burn them in ovens so no guards get sick. Remember, "Arbeit Macht Frei". f> Now, we are in business, all that is needed now are some laws to prevent the Germans from breeding, you know, they multiply like rats, and they are sneaky. No, the adult Germans of the Third Reich era do not deserve much sympathy. Now for the ultimate insult on that generation. The Germans of the Third Reich were so inhumane, even Joseph Stalin was a humanitarian in comparison. If you doubt it, reread instructions a-f. I have alot of respect for the modern German generation, but the German adult generation of the WW2 era was one of the most disgusting collections of humanity ever assembled in modern European history. There were alot of worthless people living in Germany in that era, and the world is better off so many of them were butchered by the allies.

04-01-2003, 07:12 AM	#77
Arbogast Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Athens, Ga, USA Posts: 61	... Another reason I am greatful the Third Reich was hammered without mercy. Georgia, USA is a very nice place. The Germans would have turned it into a H3II Hole. There would have been concentration camps in Georgia, California, Iowa, New York, Massachussetts, etc, etc.. All the nice Jewish and African American neighbors would not be here. The Nazis would have put them in Concentration Camps.

04-01-2003, 07:35 AM	#79
Arbogast Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Athens, Ga, USA Posts: 61	... There were alot of worthless people living in Germany in that era, and the world is better off so many of them were butchered by the allies. It is an accurate statement... There does seem to be some collective memory loss as to why the allies were ruthlessly exterminating every German soldier, and every civilian who was working to support the Third Reich death machine.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-01-2003, 12:31 AM	#71
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	If I understand your OP correctly, you are trying to find out if the reasons for the current bombing of Baghdad are morally equivalent to the bombing of cities which went on in WWII? I can't see any reason for finding equivalence between the two. The Germans had declared war on the US and were a global threat. Iraq is neither. I hope my comment isn't off topic: Will not the outside world, especially the Arab part, see the US bombing in Iraq as proof of the immorality of the US invasion, regardless of whether this war succeeds in toppling a vicious dictator? Quite so. I think that we haven't bombed cities, though, the way we did in WWII. And, given that terrorists already view themselves as being morally superior to Americans, Israelis, etc., is there not a possibility that bombing Iraq will eventually lead to greater loss of life, if one factors in the sure-to-follow increase in terrorist attacks? Yes. Did you see that Musharaf in Pakistan is now viewed as a totally American puppet and that the radicals are strengthened there, as everywhere? What if those fruitcake Muslims topple the Pakistan government and get their hands on nuclear weapons and use them against either US troops in Iraq (as I would) or worse, against Washington? Vorkosigan

04-01-2003, 01:54 AM	#72
Giorgia Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: leaving Colorado soon, I hope Posts: 259	Originally posted by Giorgia If I understand your OP correctly, you are trying to find out if the reasons for the current bombing of Baghdad are morally equivalent to the bombing of cities which went on in WWII? Originally posted by Vorkosigan I can't see any reason for finding equivalence between the two. The Germans had declared war on the US and were a global threat. Iraq is neither. ---------------------- Dear Vork, My question was actually directed to "the cave," in re the intentions of his/her original post. To answer you, though, I feel that, while Iraq may not officially be "at war" with the US, I do believe that the Am/Anglo/Aus coalition's defense of the invasion claims that Iraq is a global threat. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will not the outside world, especially the Arab part, see the US bombing in Iraq as proof of the immorality of the US invasion, regardless of whether this war succeeds in toppling a vicious dictator? Quite so. I think that we haven't bombed cities, though, the way we did in WWII. ---------------------- In my opinion, the only differences are that Iraq doesn't have as many cities as heavily-industrialized Germany did, and that the targeting-abilities of modern-day bombs are (if I understand other posts correctly) more accurate than those used in WWII. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, given that terrorists already view themselves as being morally superior to Americans, Israelis, etc., is there not a possibility that bombing Iraq will eventually lead to greater loss of life, if one factors in the sure-to-follow increase in terrorist attacks? Yes. Did you see that Musharaf in Pakistan is now viewed as a totally American puppet and that the radicals are strengthened there, as everywhere? What if those fruitcake Muslims topple the Pakistan government and get their hands on nuclear weapons and use them against either US troops in Iraq (as I would) or worse, against Washington? ---------------------- While I personally wouldn't characterize all Muslims as "fruitcakes," your scenario certainly could happen. After that, what logic would stand in the way of Israel lobbing a few against Syria?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.