| Author |
America's plan to invade Canada |
joebmc
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Kent
PM |
I'm sure you know what vanquish ment by racist!
| |
|
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-07 16:07:32, joebmc wrote:
I'm sure you know what vanquish ment by racist!
|
|
no not really...racist to me only means one thing and thats to dislike someone for there skin colour or ethnic background.
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
There's an interesting article in todays Daily Mail about about how the U.S mistakingly dropped a Nuclear Bomb on Canada in 1950 what the official U.S version of story is that the plance malfunctioned so the it had to ditch its cargo i.e: the Nuke on Canada,fortunately the uranium core did'nt explode othewise we would had another Hiroshima in Canada..the U.S Military say it was in preperation to attack the former soviet republic in the cold war..there is quite a bit more to the story but thats what basically happened,
whats really strange about this story is that this information is still classified today..cold war is over why the secrecy?..What i say is if you have nothing to hide,why hide it?
[addsig] |
joebmc
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Kent
PM |
Bit like saddam and him saying he had no MOD's but not letting in people to see!
|
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
MOD's??...don't you mean WMD's. 
The fact is saddam never really had WMD's anyway,the U.N inspectors never found any..U.S forces have been looking in iraq for years now and have found absolutely nothing..So looks like saddam was telling the truth all along,Its universally known that the U.S and U.K lied to manufacture false evidence against him to justify war..
on ther other hand the U.S has the largest stockpile of Bio and Nuclear weapons in the world and to date is the only country in the world to ever use nukes,as a result killing millions of innocent people in japan.
[addsig] |
BobaFett
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Kamino (wish it would be Lund)
PM, WWW
|
@axxxr i am with u. i was always very interested in the third reich and ww II. have plenty of books, videos, newspapers etc at home of it, but does it made me a national-socialist? no. so keep on posting the other side of the truth, nobody gets hurt cos of it imo. i do have my personal opinion abot us polocy, that is has nothing to do with the highly respected us members here or with the nation itself...
|
joebmc
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Kent
PM |
Quote:
|
on ther other hand the U.S has the largest stockpile of Bio and Nuclear weapons in the world and to date is the only country in the world to ever use nukes,as a result killing millions of innocent people in japan.
|
|
I have always wondered what gives a country the right to say another country can have nuclear weapons and another cant.
But I can understand why the yanks decided to nuke the japs.
|
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-12 17:55:44, joebmc wrote:
I have always wondered what gives a country the right to say another country can have nuclear weapons and another cant.
But I can understand why the yanks decided to nuke the japs.
|
|
Absolutely i agree with you on the first statement,Americans think that they should be the only ones on the planet to hold a nuclear arsenal...I believe every sovereign nation has a right to it,be it Iraq,Iran,North Korea ect.
Its amazing how anyone can sympathise with the americans for a nuclear attack on much weaker country....whatever the japanese did,they did'nt deserve this.
[addsig] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Another day another historical innaccuracy ...
First the nuclear weapon in Canada:
The bomb which detonated over Canada almost certainly did not have an active warhead for two reasons. The first is that the bomb was being carried on on a USAF bomber, which was taking part in an exercise to test the American Airforce's ability to drop nuclear weapons. At this time the USAF did not have posession of nuclear weapons. This point alone means that it is highly unlikely that there was an active nuclear warhead onboard the plane. The bomb itself was identical to that dropped on Nagasaki during WWII. This type of bomb had taken days to configure for actual use, hence the chance of the bomb being 'battle ready' is further lessened.
The depleted uranium in the bomb was scattered over the Pacific and a survey in 1997 showed there to be no unusual radiation in the area other than the radium on the plane's instrument panels.
The secrecy over the issue has to do with different issues. The aircraft had its own secrets pertaining to the nuclear situation at the time. Components of the bomb would have been considered to be highly sensitive and thus a cause for secrecy. Records of the mission that survived may have given away secrets of the U.S.'s war plans.
The crash and subsequent investigation are now declassified and can be looked up by the public.
Now onto weapons stockpiles:
The US. does not infact have the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, Russia does. Russia has approximately 19,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled with approximately 8,500 of them being operational. The U.S. has approximately 9,600 nuclear weapons stockpiled with approximately 6,600 at operational readiness.
The U.S. does produce small quantities of biological material for defence research, but under a 1969 executive order offensive biological research was cancelled. The U.S. declared in 1997 that it had a stockpile of 31.500 tons of chemical weapons, of which over 11,000 tons have subseqnetly been destroyed.
In comparison Russia stated that it had a stockpile of 40,000 tons of chemical weapons in 1997, only 1% of which was destroyed by 2002 as per Russia's obligation under the 2002 Chemical Weapons Convention.
What gives one country the right to say another shouldn't have nuclear weapons is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty states that five countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons (America, China, France, the UK and the U.S.S.R. (later Russia)) and all other countries who sign the treaty are not. The treaty allows for the peaceful use of nuclear technology by all sigantories, but those countries with nuclear weapons agree not transfer technology to make weapons and those without agree not to seek technology to make weapons. The treaty was proposed by Ireland.
The American use of nuclear weapons on Japan should be viewed in the context of the situation they were used in. WWII was the most destructive and costly war in human history and by the time 1945 came around tens of millions of people had already died and despite Germany's surrender in May the Japanese Empire showed no sign of surrendering to Allied forces. This then left the U.S. with a choice of either continuing the conventional war against Japan or using the newly developed atomic weapons in the hope of ending the war sooner.
Estimates had projected approximately a million casualties (although the basis for this figure is not clear to all) in the invasion of mainland Japan to say nothing of taking back the territories still held by Japan throughout Asia; unlike Germany Japan still held a large amount of territory at the end of the war. With the prospect of the war dragging on for months or perhaps even years as Japan was slowly pushed back America decided to use atom bombs to force a quick surrender. It should be noted that even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima Japan still did not surrender and it was only after the second bomb was dropped that the war finally ended. It was only after the Emperor of Japan had declared the fighting to be over that Japan surrendered.
Debate exists as to whether the U.S. used nuclear weapons on Japan as a show of strength to the U.S.S.R., however, this is a matter of historical debate rather than hard fact. It is clear that ending the war quickly and minimising American casualties was part of the reasoning behind the use of nuclear weapons, but that is not to say that such a show of strength wasn't also taken into consideration.
It should also be noted that if the Allies had invaded Japan the number of casualties resulting from such an invasion may in fact have been higher than those caused by the two nuclear weapons. Japan was estimated to have approximately two million troops defending the Home Islands and such a conflict would almost certainly have been extremely bitter. The Japanese were renowned for fighting literally to the last man and were quite prepared to sacrafice themselves in combat to do damage to the enemy. It is likely that a combination of ground fighting coupled with bombing would have resulted in massive loss of life amongst both American and Japanese troops as well as Japanese civilians.
As for Iraq's WMD that is an interesting matter, which isn't quite as clear cut as axxxr makes out. It does certainly seem to be the case that Iraq's WMD capacity was exagerated by the U.S. and UK governments as a pretext for going to war with Iraq. However, one should also consider the fact that Saddam was not keen to show weakness to his potential enemies by showing concrete proof of his lack of WMD, it served him well for his enemeies to think that he had WMD.
Whilst Saddam would have been undeniably concerned with American and British threats to attack, his main concerns would arguably have been Iran, Israel and opposition from within Iraq itself. After the first Gulf War Saddam was in a weakened position; having not only been defeated, he had also faced an uprising in Iraq. He would almost certainly have been worried about Iranian attempts to take adavantage of this situation as Iran and Iraq had been at war for several years not long before.
To that end it would serve Saddam well to project an air of power to the most immediate threats to his regime. As delusional as Saddam might have been he would almost certainly have known that he could never defeat an American led attack even if he did have WMD, hence America, and by extension the West, was a force beyond his power to directly control. Iran and Israel on the other hand are both nations that were more manageable and Saddam would have been much more able to keep any possible attack at bay by projecting an air of power to these countries.
What this leads to is not only an exageration by the US and UK governments, but also a willingness on Saddam's part to make the world think he either did have WMD or at the very least the capacity to make WMD. This last point is in fact reality as Iraq did posses the knowledge to make biological and chemical weapons if not nuclear weapons.
The question that must be asked though is to what extent the US and UK governments exagerated Saddam's capabilities and to what extent they were fooled or misled by Saddam's own desire to appear as a strongman.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-09-26 05:44 ] |
ADT0079
Joined: Oct 08, 2003
Posts: 100
PM |
I see other people are getting fed up with it to.....I dont see how you think america is this evil place...Are US policy for the time being yes maybe...but with another president things should change...I just dont see why you take your hatred towards Bush out on all of America......Should I not like all Brits because Bono and the beatles suck....You have progressed from Bush topics to Anti American topics...
Bored=Esato
Bored=Dumb post
Bored=Stupid replies
Bored=Dont bother me im here to waste yours and my time.... |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-13 01:35:34, ADT0079 wrote:
I see other people are getting fed up with it to.....I dont see how you think america is this evil place...Are US policy for the time being yes maybe...but with another president things should change...I just dont see why you take your hatred towards Bush out on all of America......Should I not like all Brits because Bono and the beatles suck....You have progressed from Bush topics to Anti American topics...
|
|
Everyone has their own opinion as i do mine.Don't really care much about what people think about me,and i will say what i think is right,we live in a free country unlike America. and yes I do believe america's government is Evil...U.S presidents will come and go but i don't think much will change in terms of foreign policy...america's greed and this obsession of control...America in my mind has always stood for oppression Bush just shows what the real american politics are all about...I don't blame the people though,im sure you ordinary folk are lovely...some of you anyway.
[addsig] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-13 01:52:11, axxxr wrote:
Everyone has their own opinion as i do mine.Don't really care much about what people think about me,and i will say what i think is right,we live in a free country unlike America. and yes I do believe america's government is Evil...U.S presidents will come and go but i don't think much will change in terms of foreign policy...america's greed and this obsession of control...America in my mind has always stood for oppression Bush just shows what the real american politics are all about...I don't blame the people though,im sure you ordinary folk are lovely...some of you anyway.
|
|
... and yet you can provide no proof of those claims which cannot be applied to other countries. You could replace the word 'America' in your post with the name of another country and have it make the same amount of sense.
Whilst some of what you say may be true and have a basis in fact the vast generalisation that you have just made in that post really does not stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny. Just off the top of my head I could point to WWII as being a point against the charge that "... America in my mind has always stood for oppression ..." or the American Civil War for that matter.
You can state that you are entitled to your opinion and of course you are quite right, you are. However, it is arguably no longer a case of receiving your opinion, rather a polemic.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-13 01:28 ] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-13 02:24:04, scotsboyuk wrote:
... and yet you can provide no proof of those claims which cannot be applied to other countries. You could replace the word 'America' in your post with the name of another country and have it make the same amount of sense.
Whilst some of what you say may be true and have a basis in fact the vast generalisation that you have just made in that post really does not stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny. Just off the top of my head I could point to WWII as being a point against the charge that "... America in my mind has always stood for oppression ..." or the American Civil War for that matter.
You can state that you are entitled to your opinion and of course you are quite right, you are. However, it is arguably no longer a case of receiving your opinion, rather a polemic.
|
|
Maybe these claims can be applied to a few other countries,But America's track record speaks for itself i do not have to give you any proof or accurate historical facts for me to justify myself,..America alone is responsible for millions upon millions of innocent deaths,if its not one war with america its another..other countries sure do also go to war but no one has more bloody record than the good old friend the u.s.a...Today if you go from china the long way around to australia most countries in between the people will say america is a problem..no one will say zimbabwe or iraq or iran or even north korea...You mentioned WWII,are we now supposed to just let them get away with everything now because a did one good deed back then?
America if it so wants can use its power properply and bring peace and justice to the world,rather than just seeking more and more power and oppressing the poor and the weak all for the sake of money and oil....If america does'nt change its stance in the world it will only create more enemies,a bit more fair and balanced politics is all they need implement,rather than taking sides with whomever they see can benefit them.
[addsig] |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
@scots - I NEVER knew that you are so d*mn good in your History Subject mate . . . can you guess WHO killed - JFK then 
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
It was the CIA who killed Kennedy..americans killed their own president..and as usual blamed an external force,in this case Cuba..
This is the same top secret agency that planned 9/11 and conveniently blamed muslim hijackers....
[addsig] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2006-01-07 16:07
