Dimension

Simple proof that oil wasn't a reason for Iraq war

Recommended Posts

USA destroyed 99% of Iraqi industry and infrastructure. Not to mention the thousands of killed, maimed, homeless, hungry, thirsty, sick...etc.. How can you speak of happiness? If USA cared about the Iraqis they would have stayed the hell out of their country!!!!
I'd say without a doubt that you're exaggerating severly with regard to the US destroying 99% of Iraqi industry and infrastructure. Even before the US led invasion of Iraq, 60% of Iraqi citizens were eating off the oil-for-food program, which existed only because Saddam Hussein refused to abide by UN sanctions. Saddam is gone now. The sanctions are lifted. Things will get better. That is certainly something to be happy about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, look at this part:

I say this in advance, since it is obvious that the US government is on a mission to liberate the whole world from their freedom.

See, ZisDead thinks that Iraq had freedom under Saddam. He's another person who thinks they were all happy and didn't want any help. He thinks Iraq had booming industry, but the US came in and destroyed it all because the US is evil.

Even if you proved to him that Saddam had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, he would just somehow twist that and find some excuse to say all genocide in Iraq was the USA's fault.

This is complete ignorance. People like this just ignore all the facts and pick out little tidbits that serve their purpose of saying the USA is an evil superpower. There is no reasoning with this kind of ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I did exaggerate with the 99%, but I wanted to make my point more obvious with that. Ok, even if 60 or 50 ro 20% of the industry and infrastructure of Iraq is destroyed, that is still a crushing blow for a country. And you seem to conveniently forget the rest of my point: "Not to mention the thousands of killed, maimed, homeless, hungry, thirsty, sick...etc.. "

Is one dismembered Iraqi child worth getting rid of Saddam? If you could, would you kill 100 children for the North Korean president to step down? Do you have a conscience? Does human life have any value to you? In reality innocent people die, it is not a computer game!!!!!! Do you get it? Or you need to have a war on your door step in order to realize this?

And I do have a right to be cynical about US interventions. 100+ interventions in one century?

In 1933 Major General Smedley Butler, USMC had this to say:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Federation Of American Scientists

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

Any comment boys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the problem with ethanol is that pure or nearly pure ethanol has the bejesus taxed out of it (since it's basically Everclear) so it's not really economical yet to fill up an entire tank of it, except of course for governments.

Ethanol has been in use for a long time. It isn't a magical high-horsepower fuel. It actually gets lower gas mileage. A lot of cheap gas stations sell gas that is 10% ethanol, and a car that normally gets 30 mpg will get 28 mpg running on 10% ethanol. It has less chemical energy than a gallon of gas. That's something people are confused about, because it has a very high octane rating (but octane is just how difficult it is to combust). Cheap gas stations will take low-octane gas and water it down with ethanol, which raises the octane.

Any car can use gas with a high percentage of ethanol, and cars made after 1986 have components resistant to ethanol, but over 10% will still void the warranty. It requires very little modification for a car to run on 100% ethanol (and even the original Model T was initially intended to run on ethanol), and more and more "flexible fuel" vehicles are being made that can run on regular gas or 100% ethanol.

Brazil uses a ton of ethanol made from sugar cane.

Ethanol doesn't just make water. It does reduce CO emissions by 1/3, though, and it puts off more vapor instead of regular exhaust, so it's much more tolerable. That's why it is used for Monster Truck ralleys and other indoor events. You get that burning alcohol smell instead of asphyxiating the audience.

With modern cars, all you need to do is alter the fuel mixture to run on alcohol. Gasoline is 0% Oxygen. Ethanol is 35% Oxygen. Methanol is 50% Oxygen.

Ethanol doesn't have big taxes like alcohol from the liquor store. Everclear is ethanol, but the ethanol you put in your car is denatured, meaning they add poison (usually 4% methanol) specifically so that it is not drinkable to avoid taxes. Denatured alcohol is used in mouthwash, or else you'd have to pay $20 for Listerine (although the denaturant is butyl alcohol, not as toxic as methanol).

I saw one article about a restaurant owner who had a heated secondary tank added to his diesel Excursion to which he added filtered vegetable oil that his restaurant had used. Apparently after the tank warms up, he can switch from diesel to vegetable oil and the only difference is that the exhaust smells like french fries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1933 Major General Smedley Butler, USMC had this to say:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

....blah blah deleted .......

Any comment boys?

Well, if major smedley butler said it in 1933, it must be true! Let me remind you that Timothy McVeigh was also a Gulf War Veteran.

Let me also remind you that the US deliberately protected Iraq's primary industry, OIL when the war began. For this we were criticized, but at least it's now defending us against attacks like the one you're making. 95% of Iraq's industry is OIL.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...s/iz.html/#econ

We protected the majority of Iraq's infrastructure against it's primary enemy..... The Iraqi people themselves!, who might otherwise have stupidly sought to "keep it out of the invader's hands".

The only infrastructure that the US intentionally targeted were military, government and communications installations, key targets in any war.

During the time that Saddam Hussein was in power many thousands of people *including women and children* were gassed, murdered and tortured. The terrible sacrifice of a few unfortunate innocents to eliminate this scourge for the forseeable future is clearly worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bastogne is a nice city especially in the summer when many tourists come over.

As for you not believing point 8:

"8) getting more grip on the world, for full control of that world

I dont believe this at all. At least I dont believe this enough to say anything about it."

Ho but i do think the U.S. wants to control the world. I am not saying  i am against this, as i said a few weeks ago on this board. Better the U.S. ruling over Europe then Muslims.

What i did was putting 9 points that all together have something to do with this war (if not all 9 then at least some).

Number 10 could also be a nice one:

10) at least enough weapons where wasted so that the American war industry can start producing again.

Surely no one here really believes the war was only to remove Saddam. I find this very hard to believe.

François

Thank you for the response to my question. I sometimes wonder what happened to the cities that where so baddly bombed during the scond world war.

And I'mnot sure if the US wants to controle the world per-say. Maybe have it go more its way, ;) but not dominate it compleatly.

I really dont think that has much to do with the war in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is one dismembered Iraqi child worth getting rid of Saddam? If you could, would you kill 100 children for the North Korean president to step down?

The answer to those two questions is a resounding "YES" and "YES." If you know anything then you know that many more than 100 children have been killed by the genocidal governments in Iraq and North Korea.

Getting into the North Korea thing would just add to the stupidity going on in this thread, so let's not.

Again you surprise me! I thought the last thing you said was the stupidest thing imaginable. There's no reason for me to be responding, because just like I said in my previous comments, you cannot be reasoned with. Even if you are proven wrong, you will just find something else to distort and blame on the US.

But for God's sake, how can you say it's not worth maiming a few kids to get Saddam out of power? You think it's better to let him go on killing by the thousands? It doesn't take a genius to understand that preventing ongoing genocide is worth the loss of a few lives, as sad as that may be. It's a tragedy, but rest assured that Iraq's former government made sure they put every hurt kid they could find in the country on TV.

And then you say that in the last 100 years the US has had 100 "interventions." I don't even care to get into where you found these numbers that you're taking completely out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USA destroyed 99% of Iraqi industry and infrastructure. Not to mention the thousands of killed, maimed, homeless, hungry, thirsty, sick...etc.. How can you speak of happiness? If USA cared about the Iraqis they would have stayed the hell out of their country...

If I may interject, the previous regime allowed much of the civilian infrastructure to deteriorate. Especially in rebel-held areas or oppositionist districts which the tyrant wished to punish. Saddam instead deliberately chose to build huge and super-luxurious palaces for himself and his cronies from 1992 onwards. It can be safely said that 99% of these palaces were hit, occupied , or looted.

The same destruction also happened in Serbia, where USA bombed the hell out of the civilian infrastructure and industry. Now Serbia is "free" from Milosevic(who was just a patriot), but is ruled by even worse foreign agents. Not to mention the increased poverty and huge debt...

Milosevic is now charged by the UN International Criminal Tribunal with CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OR CUSTOMS OF WAR. http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/...l-ii990524e.htm

...Please do not use it, because USA means everything opposite of freedom. A neo-fascist-socialist empire on the rise, where communist methods of surveilance are applied and private monopolies rule everything. Not much different than the good old USSR.

How can "private monopolies" arise in a Socialist system? And how can a Fascist regime also practice Socialism? And how can an Emperor rule when "private monopolies" rule everything? And how can the "communist methods of surveillance" of a Party security apparatus apply to "private monopolies" which rule everything?

Way too many contradictions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else.

That's a lovely idea. Thank God nobody listened to that general in 1933!

The USA is certainly not 100% responsible for winning WWII, but without the USA entering the war and fighting proactively, we would probably all be dead or speaking German right now.

Beyond that, it's not worth getting into speculation about what the USSR would've done.

As long as there are people like Saddam in the world, war will be necessary, and people will die. People like you would just stand there smiliing while Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, or who-the-hell-ever just walked up and raped your kids and shot you in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I totally understand you, all of you pathetic all-american self-rigtheous serfs.

I don't blame you for being so stubborn because of the following circumstances:

1) You are conditioned consistently since the day you were born to supress dissent

2) You can not believe in anything else because the new knowledge would rip your conscience to pieces

3) You have to posess the greatness to surpass you EGO and admit facts that defeat you.

Quote:

"But for God's sake, how can you say it's not worth maiming a few kids"

Why don't you volunteer your kids to be maimed for good causes, you sensless..........!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

"How can "private monopolies" arise in a Socialist system? And how can a Fascist regime also practice Socialism? And how can an Emperor rule when "private monopolies" rule everything? And how can the "communist methods of surveillance" of a Party security apparatus apply to "private monopolies" which rule everything?"

That's why I said similar to USSR, not the same. Ok now you have private monopolies, USSR had public monopolies. However, the people who own those monolopies are the richest and in fact control your government. So you have the same picture, one group of people controlling everything. The Patriot act is aimed against you "the average american cirizen", not against the corporate bosses. Please read a good book on the subject, cause I'm getting tired of typing the same things over and over. Your skulls are too thick for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dimension-

You said quite a bit to me in your post. To much to quote.

Let me just say this-

Abou tthe SR-71.

I've been stationed at Beale for about 3 years now. Granted the SR's no longer flys out of there, but as you more then likely know it use to.

I vaguely remember something about it needing special fuel, but cant really say much more then that.

Yes I know about the SR needing a refuel after take off. Its fuel truble was in most part why the project was canceled.

I think we could argue which jet is the most advanced the world has ever seen. Thats why I said the SR-71 is arguably the most advanced jet the world has ever seen. ;) LOL

The truth is, after talking to some pilots that have flowen the SR, they dont know how fast it could truly go. They said they would cruze at mach 3+ with %25 throtle left. The SR hit such a high ceiling the pilots where awarded their astronaut wings. And all the while noone really knew how or why it whent so fast or so high. It Utilized what could be said as basic steath concepts, flying faster and higher then any jet has ever flowen before and since. And all on the drawing table during the 50's, being afficial announced by LBJ in 1965. Then it took 25 years to bring the B-2 Spirt on line? The first B-2 Squadron being formed at Whiteman AFB in 1993.

The B-2 has a max speed of about 500 MPH. Its so aerodynamically un-stable it cant land in a cross wind and can only fly in fair weather. We had one cirlce Fairchild AFB for 30 minutes before the wind died down enough to let it land. KC-135s where flying out all day. It was almost diverted to McCord AFB nearly 300 miles away. The F-16, F-117, and B-2 (probably more I dont know about) are all controlled by their computers. Imput from the pilot is interpitted (sp?) by the computer and the computer(s) make the ajustment. 100s of coculations and minuet in-flght corections are made every second by those air crafts computers. They're not aerodynamic. They're kep in the sky by their computers. If they all whent off line they would spin uncontrollably to the ground. I dont consider that to be very advanced in the terms of airospace flight. I consider it cheatting. The B-1 is different. It can fly without its computers (kind of). At least it wont tumble to the earth if they go off line. -but I've rambled enough about that.

But anyhow

About the engine thing

I'm not worried about oil at all. and really i dont think anyone else is quite frankly. Now if OPEC was runnign the war, that woudl be a different story. ;)

I think your right. There are alternatives to internal combustion. But I think if any of them took hold the world economy would collapse. I truely believe that. Have you ever driven an electric car? It has "get up and go" like I have never seen. I have no doubt it could smoke anything on the road. None what so ever. 500+ HP vipers and vets be dambed. But the go 70 miles before they have to be recharged. Oh, ya. Great. From someone who drives that in a day. Ya right. So you make a high bred. Well those arnt being excepted by the masses eaither. But do you know what would happen if they where? Do you know what would happen if ever car built next year was a high bred that didnt get 250 miles per tank but per gallon rather. The economy would collapse. The oil industry needs people fillling up their tanks once a week. Not twice a year.

I heard once, that if every one in the US didnt go to the pump for 2 weeks. 2 full weeks. The oil industry would go bankrupt. After what happend to the air lines after sep 11, I have NO truble believing this at all.

What was my point? How did i get on this? Oh, ya. Why i thought the war wasnt for oil. I think we have the Technology to stop using oil almost entirely, but its like you said Dimension, no one wants to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly Fire

Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

By David Ruppe

N E W Y O R K, May 1 — In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba...................

the rest at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...efs_010501.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"How can "private monopolies" arise in a Socialist system? And how can a Fascist regime also practice Socialism? And how can an Emperor rule when "private monopolies" rule everything? And how can the "communist methods of surveillance" of a Party security apparatus apply to "private monopolies" which rule everything?"

That's why I said similar to USSR, not the same. Ok now you have private monopolies, USSR had public monopolies. However, the people who own those monolopies are the richest and in fact control your government. So you have the same picture, one group of people controlling everything.

Then USSR did not have multiple monopolies, it was the monopoly itself and arrogated every other economic activity to the side to discourage countervailing power centers. I do agree that in the USSR as in everywhere else, there is a "group of people controlling everything." No surprises here really, that's what human rulers are for. What really matters is how effective the ruling class is in the long run in answering the social, security, and economic needs of the people.

But really now, how can a Fascist regime coexist with public monopolies which rule everything?

And still, how can a Fascist regime also practice Socialism? How can an Empire rule together with "private monopolies" which rule everything? How can "communist methods of surveillance" apply to "private/public monopolies" which rule everything?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But really now, how can a Fascist regime coexist with public monopolies which rule everything?

And still, how can a Fascist regime also practice Socialism? How can an Empire rule together with "private monopolies" which rule everything? How can "communist methods of surveillance" apply to "private/public monopolies" which rule everything?"

Germany in WW2 was Fascist and Nazist(National-Socialict).....In Hitler's time private monopolies ruled German economy.

Look at it as a top-down approach :)

'nuff said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But really now, how can a Fascist regime coexist with public monopolies which rule everything?

And still, how can a Fascist regime also practice Socialism? How can an Empire rule together with "private monopolies" which rule everything? How can "communist methods of surveillance" apply to "private/public monopolies" which rule everything?"

Germany in WW2 was Fascist and Nazist(National-Socialict).....In Hitler's time private monopolies ruled German economy.

Look at it as a top-down approach :)

'nuff said

Hitler ruled everything in Germany, not the "private monopolies". Nazi Germany was not a real Socialist state in which the means of producing and distributing goods was owned by a centralized government or mass collective - hence the existence of the "private monopolies". Germany's leadership then was indeed fascist and extraordinarily racist. The redistributive economic methods used to maintain their political power (which some Socialists cite) benefited only those who met the exclusive racial criteria.

And still, how can an Empire rule together with "private monopolies" which rule everything? As impossibly as a true Socialist state can?

And still, how can "communist methods of surveillance" apply to "private/public monopolies" which rule everything?" As impossibly as the German SS/SD/Gestapo can?

Way too many contradictions for a neo-Nazi-Fascist-Socialist-Imperialist-Private Monopolist-Public Monopolist-"similar to USSR-ist" -"Communist Methods of Surveillance-ist" USA to arise, it appears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Friendly Fire

Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

By David Ruppe

N E W  Y O R K, May 1 — In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba...................

the rest at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...efs_010501.html

Things change quite a bit when your neighbor allies with your worst enemy and starts building nuclear missle silos on your doorstep. I wholeheartedly disagree with the deliberate sacrifice of innocent civilians simply to muster support for a military action, however "draft plans" are clearly not worthy of argument. Let's stick to things that actually happend as opposed to things that were merely proposed and then thrown in the trash can.

I know if I had been a senior member of the US government during the Cuban missile crisis and I was trying desperately to muster public support for a major military action against Cuba to keep hostile nukes off our doorstep something as drastic as a staged terrorist attack could come across the table, but would probably get turned down, as it was in this case.

What's your point? That drastic times call for drastic measures? No one has ever been convicted for "considering" a dispicable act. I'm sure that certain US officials have ordered many dispicable acts in the past. That neither condemns our general idealogy or has any relevance on the current situation. If staged terrorist attacks had taken place, it would be in violation of every law we have on the books. The officials behind it would be criminals. As I've stated previously, the US isn't perfect. There are 2 million US citizens in jail right now, and no doubt some high ranking government officials are among them. Please tell me what that has to do with the price of Tea in China?

The US is condemned for having *considered* a plan to commit a dispicable act 50 years ago, and you are using it to defend Saddam who is hands down, no doubt, guilty of mass murder of innocent civilians? Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US is condemned for having *considered*

No no no.....not just considered. Remember any nukes killing half a million(500.000) in Japan? And don't tell me that it was nessecary. Japan had already surenderred.

but would probably get turned down, as it was in this case.

Yeah it got turned down. The US people have to thank JFK for that....But then again, he got whacked for it....And they'll tell you about the lone crazy Oswald over and over. Yeah right.....he got him. Watch JFK the movie.

This time nobody got whacked. Dybbuya is well, thank god. However, 3000 citizens are not. He got HUUUUGE poll ratings and support for limitless war and increase of governmental power. I guess it was pure math for him. 3000=war. Thic is C student math.

So if USA was in such great danger wouldn't the public be aware of it and urge force the military to react? Or do you assume the the US public is dumb and numb and can not tell when its time to wage war?

Or it could be the case when someone want's a war for their own twisted interests, he will have to scare the public and then act as a saviour. You'll be revolted to learn what your government is capable of, but first you have to remove your pink glasses.

Someone already said this in the forum:

Wake up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on the SR-71 for a minuite, it used so much fuel on takeoff because it has an advanced engine type called scramjets, a derivative of the ramjet. Unlike turbojets or turbofans, a ramjet does not have turbine blades. Rather, it simply dumps fuel into a cavity and conbusts it, and the pressure of the air coming in the front causes it to explode out the back, creating thrust. They are very powerful, but have one major drawback: they don't provide thrust unless the aircraft is actually moving in the first place (e.g., it cannot start from standing still). A scramjet is made to work around that limitation by placing a set of impellers in front of a ramjet and burning the impellers like a small jet engine, providing enough pressure from this mini turbofan to cause the remainder of the scramjet, the ramjet portition to ignite and produce thrust. However, this is obviously not exactly fuel efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember any nukes killing half a million(500.000) in Japan?

Perhaps some extra C-student math is required here, but to my recollection the figures are closer to 70,000 for Nagasaki and 150,000 for Hiroshima (depending on what figures you use) -- 220,000 is a pretty far cry off of 500,000.

If you really want to talk about killing, why not talk about the firebombing of Dresden, or the bombing of Tokyo? The firebombing of Tokyo killed something like 130,000 people in a day, with many, many other Japanese cities bombed conventionally. And Dresden lost between 250K and 500K over about 14 hours.

So if you wish to fixate on terrible occurences, why do you forget these? Because they weren't sensational? Why concentrate on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? My suspicion is that it's because you didn't really do much research, and just hear what is said in the media, and use that as your "facts."

ZisDead, chances are the reason you aren't changing anyone's mind here is that the evidence you use is only convincing if you are predisposed to believe it. If not, you are likely to fairly readily find arguments and evidence against it with a little research. Things are very, very rarely as simple as they are made out in the news (or even a typical history textbook).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zisdead,

I'm not exactly fond of the current US government but reall, you're FULL of it and smelly as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember any nukes killing half a million(500.000) in Japan?

Perhaps some extra C-student math is required here, but to my recollection the figures are closer to 70,000 for Nagasaki and 150,000 for Hiroshima (depending on what figures you use) -- 220,000 is a pretty far cry off of 500,000.

Maybe what he was suggesting was the amount of people that died because they were contaminated with nuclear radiation ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember any nukes killing half a million(500.000) in Japan?

Perhaps some extra C-student math is required here, but to my recollection the figures are closer to 70,000 for Nagasaki and 150,000 for Hiroshima (depending on what figures you use) -- 220,000 is a pretty far cry off of 500,000.

If you really want to talk about killing, why not talk about the firebombing of Dresden, or the bombing of Tokyo? The firebombing of Tokyo killed something like 130,000 people in a day, with many, many other Japanese cities bombed conventionally. And Dresden lost between 250K and 500K over about 14 hours.

So if you wish to fixate on terrible occurences, why do you forget these? Because they weren't sensational? Why concentrate on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? My suspicion is that it's because you didn't really do much research, and just hear what is said in the media, and use that as your "facts."

ZisDead, chances are the reason you aren't changing anyone's mind here is that the evidence you use is only convincing if you are predisposed to believe it. If not, you are likely to fairly readily find arguments and evidence against it with a little research. Things are very, very rarely as simple as they are made out in the news (or even a typical history textbook).

You are totally missing my points. Did you read the whole discusion or you are getting at things out of context?

If you read the whole discussion, then read it again, but this time more carefully.

Live long and prosper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Dresden and Tokyo bombings (and Berlin for that matter), why don't we bring up London and other British cities? How about some cities in the USSR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now