George Bush is a war criminal

[darkboong]

I realize that it won't stop you from pontificating about how the US has screwed everything up. Continue on. You are quite amusing.

As I forecasted, you are continuing to lie... I will never claim that "the US has screwed everything up", that's impossible because the British Empire screwed a lot of stuff up before the US even drafted a constitution...

There is no way I am ever going to tolerate the words of apologists that attempt to justify actions that intentionally shed the blood of thousands of defenceless civillians. It is not acceptable whatever the cause, it is never morally justified. If there is no other way to implement your goals then your goals are wrong. You will *never* hear me justify the raids on Dresden, Cologne, the Amritsar Massacre, Bloody Sunday, etc, the list goes on... FWIW in the case of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Cologne there were a lot of experienced battle-hardened commanders who rejected the idea as "inhumane" outright.

 

[Carrera]

Fred seems to know everybody and makes it abundantly clear when occasion demands. It seems to me that this has something to do with chest-pounding -something Fred inherited from his ancestors, I reckon.
But I finally figured out who the mystery Fred is: It has to be no other than Richard Littlejohn, the columnist from The Sun.

That's why I chose to maintain a low profile and never excel at anything as to maintain a hint of mystery.
So far so good.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Why was the second bomb "necessary" ? IMO it was used as a live test (it was a plutonium bomb rather than a uranium one).

The first bomb detonated in New Mexico was a plutonium bomb. Nagasaki wasn't a live test. The Hiroshima bomb was a live test. The bombs weren't dropped to defeat the Japanese even though they deserved it. The bombs were meant as a message to the Soviets.

 

[Carrera]

The trouble with the U.S., as I mentioned before, is they continue to hold the view that war is a means of implemeting policy i.e. solving global problems. The big mistake they are making at the moment is their failure to respect human rights or champion the cause of human rights, and this is why world opinion is drifting away from U.S. influence.
Of course, the same mistake was made in Vietnam and America didn't heed the historical lesson they learned from such intervention - that nationalism, even in the Third World - is a force you can't control through missiles (even as the USSR realised in Afghanistan).
Unless the U.S. changes the current attitude and considers that poverty, environmental pollution and imbalance will continually feed instability, they will continue to lose influence to the E.U. and U.N. No amount of military campaigns will solve these problems till the root causes are addressed, in my opinion.
As for war, the only just wars have been defensive ones. It is really crazy to compare the war against Saddam with the second world war against ****** as the neo-cons have done. The truth is there was no comparison of the threat posed by an ageing, spent tin-pot dictator in a small, oil-rich country and the huge force that Nazi Germany represented. ****** was actively invading and carving up Europe with a huge military machine while Saddam was doing nothing that posed any genuine threat.
Bush and Blair were fully aware the Iraq war would cost millions of innocent lives but they went ahead regardless. I agree it's inexcusable and I believe the majority of world opinion shares the same view.

As I forecasted, you are continuing to lie... I will never claim that "the US has screwed everything up", that's impossible because the British Empire screwed a lot of stuff up before the US even drafted a constitution...

There is no way I am ever going to tolerate the words of apologists that attempt to justify actions that intentionally shed the blood of thousands of defenceless civillians. It is not acceptable whatever the cause, it is never morally justified. If there is no other way to implement your goals then your goals are wrong. You will *never* hear me justify the raids on Dresden, Cologne, the Amritsar Massacre, Bloody Sunday, etc, the list goes on... FWIW in the case of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Cologne there were a lot of experienced battle-hardened commanders who rejected the idea as "inhumane" outright.

 

[Carrera]

"I have been advocating the dissolution of NATO for over 15 years. Europe should set up it's own force, however the UK and US have been fighting against that. Why would the US and the UK want to keep Europe dependant on the US, hmm ?"

I agree. The whole idea of George Bush manipulating an alliance to suit his own domestic policy is no longer a viable option. Europe is, of course, partly to blame for this since it allowed the U.S. and U.S.S.R. to build up an excess of armaments. That meant that whoever came out on top in the cold war would be able to dictate European policy - something France has finally grasped and found to be negative.
There is a huge imbalance due to Europe having been lazy over the last few decades.
Europe has to invest billions of Euros on an independent military and pull out of NATO. That doesn't mean Europe has to be a global superpower, but it would be a positive thing for Europe to have control of its own internal affairs.It doesn't seem likely that the ideological differences between Europe and right wing American neo-cons will be bridged and I think the gulf between Europe and America has become too vast.

That's a "What If", Fantasy Land, not a fact.

I don't see how killing off 230,000 civillians in three raids saved lives. Why was the second bomb "necessary" ? IMO it was used as a live test (it was a plutonium bomb rather than a uranium one).

Just to put this into perspective, IIRC the US lost < 300,000 servicemen in the entire duration of WWII. On the Japanese civillian side one fire-bombing raid on Tokyo claimed 80,000 lives alone, the Hiroshima bomb claimed in excess of 100,000, and the Nagasaki bomb claimed in excess of 50,000.

FWIW I ain't a fan of what Britain did as far as bombing cities (Dresden, Cologne for example). It was disgusting and there was no excuse for it.

There is no justification for slaughtering defenceless civillians on that scale IMO.



Have you heard of Oppenheimer ?



Like Noreiga for example ?



I have been advocating the dissolution of NATO for over 15 years. Europe should set up it's own force, however the UK and US have been fighting against that. Why would the US and the UK want to keep Europe dependant on the US, hmm ?

Another little factoid : The UK doesn't even have control of it's own nuclear weapons, the targetting and firing codes are held by the US... As a tax-payer I see that as a gross waste of my money, particularly as Trident is a big fat Lemon with or without the firing codes.

 

[darkboong]

The first bomb detonated in New Mexico was a plutonium bomb. Nagasaki wasn't a live test.

It wasn't the same design as the New Mexico device though, so it was a test of a new design on a *live* target.

The Hiroshima bomb was a live test. The bombs weren't dropped to defeat the Japanese even though they deserved it. The bombs were meant as a message to the Soviets.

There is no way you should be endorsing attacks on defenceless civillians to "send a message" after 9/11. There is no way you can call yourself a human being after that post of yours. Human beings have morals, you clearly don't.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

It wasn't the same design as the New Mexico device though, so it was a test of a new design on a *live* target.



There is no way you should be endorsing attacks on defenceless civillians to "send a message" after 9/11. There is no way you can call yourself a human being after that post of yours. Human beings have morals, you clearly don't.

Kiss my ass. Tell the people of Nanking about morals. When you have a better grasp of history then you can lecture me.

And yes the NM test and Nagasaki bombs were implosion bombs. Same design.

 

[Carrera]

The question is, would you have felt the same way had Krushchev launched a similar assault on the U.S. from Cuba? This is an event that very nearly happened, as according to what I researched, both Krushchev and Kennedy were struggling to hold on to their authority at the time, as hardliners moved in. Luckily Bush wasn't in office at that time and both Krushchev and Kennedy were moderates.
It's O.K. to drop H bombs on other countries but I think when your own country is affected, attitudes change. WMD's are fine so long as others are victims but, as I recall, Americans were in hysteria during the Cuba crisis.

Kiss my ass. Tell the people of Nanking about morals. When you have a better grasp of history then you can lecture me.

And yes the NM test and Nagasaki bombs were implosion bombs. Same design.

 

[darkboong]

Kiss my ass. Tell the people of Nanking about morals. When you have a better grasp of history then you can lecture me.

That's rich coming from you matey, and I'm not gonna kiss the ass of a skunk. As for Nanking, aside from it being almost entirely irrelevant, I ain't endorsing what happened there either, that was immoral and unjustifiable too.

And yes the NM test and Nagasaki bombs were implosion bombs. Same design.

No, same principle, different design, they didn't even look the same. Learn some history yourself before you continue your career in being an apologist for mass murder.

 

[Carrera]

Speaking of the dangers of nuclear power, there is a though-provoking website that generated a huge amount of traffic and was featured in the press not too long ago.
It's about a Ukranian female bike-rider who takes trips out to the ghost town of Chernobyl where the entire town has been frozen in a time warp. It is now, just as things appeared during the time of Michael Gorbachev and way before the fall of the Berlin wall.
You can see pics of Chernobyl, the fairground, the houses and buildings e.t.c.
As I recall, the Soviet Government tried to cover the disaster up at the time. Here is the site but be warned: it's eerie and a touch depressing:
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

 

[jhuskey]

The question is, would you have felt the same way had Krushchev launched a similar assault on the U.S. from Cuba? This is an event that very nearly happened, as according to what I researched, both Krushchev and Kennedy were struggling to hold on to their authority at the time, as hardliners moved in. Luckily Bush wasn't in office at that time and both Krushchev and Kennedy were moderates.
It's O.K. to drop H bombs on other countries but I think when your own country is affected, attitudes change. WMD's are fine so long as others are victims but, as I recall, Americans were in hysteria during the Cuba crisis.

Speaking as a child of that era .I went to bed sacred and woke up sacred shitless. I was very interested in weapons capabilities at that time and had a good grasp on what a 100 megaton bomb would do.
I live within 50 mile of Oak Ridge where elements of the original bombs were produced and is still a high security area.
I do not believe it is a fair to say that Bush would have done worse. In all honesty it was almost shear luck that a nuclaer war didn't occur.
Nothing to do with being moderate. The whole world should have been in hysteria considering the consequences.

By the way anyone ever heard of a Sodium Cobalt Bomb?

 

[Carrera]

It had all been meant to be a political stunt. It had been pointed out to Krushchev that the Americans had missiles pointed at Ukraine from bases in Turkey. So, Krushchev decided to move soviet missiles to Cuba but only as a political statement and protest over the situation in Turkey.
But it all went badly wrong. The Americans panicked as they believed the USSR had dramatically upped the stakes and were threatening an attack. This forced Krushchev to tell lies and deny the whole thing but he was also backed into a position where he couldn't lose face.
Hardliners in the Soviet army were pushing Kushchev to prepare for genuine war. Kennedy, as a liberal democrat, was being pushed into war by the equivalent of the neo cons to attack Cuba.
The whole situation was the finish of Krushchev even though he managed to get rid of the bases in Turkey as a condition for backing down over Cuba. But the liberals considered Krushchev as reckless and the hard-liners weren't happy over losing face.

Speaking as a child of that era .I went to bed sacred and woke up sacred shitless. I was very interested in weapons capabilities at that time and had a good grasp on what a 100 megaton bomb would do.
I live within 50 mile of Oak Ridge where elements of the original bombs were produced and is still a high security area.
I do not believe it is a fair to say that Bush would have done worse. In all honesty it was almost shear luck that a nuclaer war didn't occur.
Nothing to do with being moderate. The whole world should have been in hysteria considering the consequences.

By the way anyone ever heard of a Sodium Cobalt Bomb?

 

[FredC]

How much will you putting up in 'The Superstars Programme' in the Carrera v Beckham match? All for Charity. It will be a match set off with different start times so that you don't affect him your BO.

Answer the question wet pants. How much will you be staking for charity?

 

[Wurm]

roadhog -

Being "familiar" with a book is a far cry from having read and comprehended it. Why don't you see if you can find it at your library or something? That is, if you can do so without being arrested under suspicion of terra'.


Do you think the US is trying to take over the world?

Yes. Or haven't you seen the PNAC manifesto?

Do you think N Korea's leader is not a wack job?

Whether he is or not is moot. Withdrawing from the occupation of Iraq and A'stan is needed. But Chicken George won't fight NK because, #1: they'll fight back. #2: they have no natural resources like oil/natural gas that the US wants.

Do you think there are not Iraqi warplanes buried in the sand?

No. Even if there were what would it matter? However, one thing we ARE sure of is neo-con supporters having their heads buried in the sand.

Do you think the US military has been destructive in all the places I mentioned?

More so than not, yes.

Do you think the US Army and Marines do not have manpower issues right now given their committments?

Do you mean their unnecessary "commitments"?

Do you think SE Asia doesn't have many more complex issues than the axis of evil reference?

Certainly. But the Lyin' King is the one who labeled them in his simple-minded way, for easier consumption by his simple-minded supporters.

Pics of the Monkey Man:

 

[Carrera]

Beckham has a small advantage - he's younger than me. But in my prime........!!
Even now the old tendons are sore in some areas, I'd still like to see how good Beckham really is for the moeny he earns. I'm sure there are many folks on the forum who would kick his ass. Could he stay with Lim up Alpe D' Huez? How far would Rooney get? I'll bet Lance's lady could kick both their asses with her 1 hour 37 minute ascent.

Answer the question wet pants. How much will you be staking for charity?

 

[davidmc]

I'm not happy about the results but that is the way it is.

 

[roadhog]

Wurm, now that I know who you Man-Ape is, you may be interested to know I've never claimed to be the biggest fan. I do consider myself conservative (though don't affiliate with either party), but these days people have differing definitions of liberal and conservative so that doesn't even tell you much for sure. Couldn't even get myself to vote in last election because I couldn't commit to either side (I know that's a poor excuse to not vote, but I literally could not get myself to go either way - not proud of it).

Being "familiar" with a book is a far cry from having read and comprehended it.

I couldn't agree more. What does this have to do with anything? Did I claim to know all about your beloved book?

Why don't you see if you can find it at your library or something? That is, if you can do so without being arrested under suspicion of terra'.

Thanks for those immature statements.

Do you think the US is trying to take over the world?
Yes. Or haven't you seen the PNAC manifesto?

I admit I'm not sure how to respond to this. If you honestly think we're trying to take over the world, then more power to you buddy. And stop refering me to damn books! I could easily ask you to read a few volumes as well. Don't feel like chatting with you about this one...

Do you think N Korea's leader is not a wack job?

Whether he is or not is moot. Withdrawing from the occupation of Iraq and A'stan is needed. But Chicken George won't fight NK because, #1: they'll fight back. #2: they have no natural resources like oil/natural gas that the US wants.

So, you agree he is a wack job or no? What does Iraq and Afghanistan and oil have to do with this question? You are pre-occupied with your passion and cannot focus.

Do you think there are not Iraqi warplanes buried in the sand?

No. Even if there were what would it matter? However, one thing we ARE sure of is neo-con supporters having their heads buried in the sand.

Technically you may be right, but only because we already exhumed the ones I am aware of already. Of course there are probably more. And sorry, I saw this with my very own eyes on many occasions from very close range. I will choose to believe my vision rather than you or any of your books on this one. You are right, this fact doesn't matter towards anything, I was simply searching for some clue as to why I was labeled a fan of your man ape. Thought maybe this might be it...

Do you think the US military has been destructive in all the places I mentioned?

More so than not, yes.

Great, you're entitled to your opinions. Maybe we should stop helping people when they ask for it. Stop all the compassionate aid deliveries, relief work, policing actions, etc. I'm sure that will not spark outrage among some...

Do you think the US Army and Marines do not have manpower issues right now given their committments?

Do you mean their unnecessary "commitments"?

Again, you are pre-occupied with your passions and not able to focus... Can you not answer simple questions without these comments?

Do you think SE Asia doesn't have many more complex issues than the axis of evil reference?

Certainly. But the Lyin' King is the one who labeled them in his simple-minded way, for easier consumption by his simple-minded supporters.

Great we agree on something. I also don't think the axis of evil thing was a good idea (mentioned that in previous post). I simply don't think we can attribute the majority of current problems over there with that. I think we agree. ... so is this why I love your man-ape? If so, then you must as well.

Pics of the Monkey Man:

Very mature. This will certainly do a lot of good for everyone. Behavior like this gives your cause a bad name among many, regardless of the worth of your arguments. You're acting like a school kid. Maybe you are, who knows. I was surprised when I learned ryan_velo is.

You have indicated yourself to me as someone who is not worth conversing with, so don't expect me to respond to any more of your rantings. You haven't even taken the time to consider what my stance on things may be, but are fanatical about enforcing your passions even when they are irrelevant and mostly in an immature manner. I'm through with you.

Good day to you.

 

[roadhog]

The Vietnam War doesn't count as peacekeeping and it is easily the biggest single operation the US was involved in during the last 30 years...

By nearly all generally accepted definitions, the Vietnam war ended on April 30 1975 (thus all their anniversary celebrations last week). I posted on 3 May 2005. 30 years and 3 days later. I didn't come up with the number 30 arbitrarily. I'm not sure you'll find an American who won't freely admit there was plenty "messed up" about how we handled that whole situation.

When it comes to "Peace Keeping", generally the US does the Blitzkrieg and passes the mess over to other nations to clean up.

Ok, completely disagree on this one. On the contrary, we've been cleaning up a lot of messes at the request of others lately (as well as cleaning our own created messes). We certainly do a lot of mess cleaning, regardless of who made them, and most of it is not close to our part of the world.

What causes more damage ? A man with an AK47 or a 10MT nuke ?

Of course the nuke. What are you debating? I already said we agree on this whole part of the issue.

 

[limerickman]

Roadhog :

While I appreciate your sentiments, one only has to look as far as Iraq to see that your country's foreign policy is not very competent.

Vietnam, Somalia were disasters.
The proxy wars involving your goverment (or agencies of your goverment) left
countries and economies in ruins like Chile, El Salvador.

The tacit support for countries like Israel also destabilises an entire region.

To compound all of this, is the fact that many ordinary decent Americans have no idea just what your country does get up to abroad.
A lot of good does emanate from your country too.
But in respect of goverment policy, I think there is a lot of stuff done by your goverment which is ethically and morally wrong.

 

[Carrera]

Yes, in Columbia they just arrested some American military personnel who were apparently trying to instigate a right wing coup. They will be sent back to the U.S. and deported apparently.
When I was in Russia some years ago, some Americans were also apprehended near the Chechnyan border somewhere - the intention being to arm the Chechnyan fighters, bog Russia down in a ground war and then try and get U.S. businesses to the front in Chechnya. This was prior to 9/11. This is why Putin is so important for Russia as foreigners were basically dying to get their hands on the oil in the region and profit from the Chechnyan conflict.
I agree with you that American people are generally quite decent folks and tend to be well-liked by the locals when they visit countries as tourists. In fact, American tourists are considered more polite and well-behaved than the Brits. The problem is, as you say, there is a lot of corruption in politics and I also share your view that Americans don't really know the half of what is going on in their name.
Needless to say, Thatcher also sold WMD to Saddam Hussein. Politicians cause us all more trouble than they're worth.

Roadhog :

While I appreciate your sentiments, one only has to look as far as Iraq to see that your country's foreign policy is not very competent.

Vietnam, Somalia were disasters.
The proxy wars involving your goverment (or agencies of your goverment) left
countries and economies in ruins like Chile, El Salvador.

The tacit support for countries like Israel also destabilises an entire region.

To compound all of this, is the fact that many ordinary decent Americans have no idea just what your country does get up to abroad.
A lot of good does emanate from your country too.
But in respect of goverment policy, I think there is a lot of stuff done by your goverment which is ethically and morally wrong.