« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
North Korea abondons Nukes
September 19, 2005 - 02:13 AM
|
|
I really did not see this one coming. I guess North Korea is reolizing how much help it will need with the expected famine and so has folded - Yong - any thoughts?
(CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday called North Korea's decision to abandon its nuclear program a positive step, but he questioned whether all parties would "adhere to the agreement."
Talking to reporters at a Cabinet meeting, Bush said, "Five nations in working with North Korea have come up with a formula which we all hope works. Five nations have spoken and said it is not in the world's interests that North Korea have a nuclear weapon.
"And now there's a way forward. And part of the way forward is for the North Koreans to understand that we're serious about this and that we expect there to be a verifiable process.
"They have said, in principle, that they will abandon their weapons programs. And what we have said is, 'Great. That's a wonderful step forward. But now we've got to verify whether or not that happens.'
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
September 19, 2005 - 02:52 AM
|
|
"The question is, over time, will all parties adhere to the agreement?"
Earlier, a Bush administration official told CNN that Pyongyang's promise is significant, but noted the North Koreans must show they will allow for verification, including rejoining the international nuclear inspections regime which would allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to re-enter the country.
The official said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in close contact all weekend with the chief U.S. negotiator, Christopher Hill.
Earlier Monday, Hill said the talks were in their "endgame." (Full story)
North Korea has agreed to give up its entire nuclear program, including weapons, a joint statement from six-party nuclear arms talks in Beijing said.
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and to IAEA safeguards," the statement said.
In exchange, the United States, China, Japan, Russian and South Korea have "stated their willingness" to provide energy assistance to North Korea, as well as promote economic cooperation.
The announcement came nearly three years after North Korea ordered U.N. nuclear inspectors out of the country.
The World Food Program has said that North Korea is headed toward the worst humanitarian food crisis since the mid 1990s, when an estimated 1 million North Koreans died. WFP says 6.5 million North Koreans desperately need food aid. (U.N. Food aid to end)
The breakthrough agreement came on what was the seventh day of the fourth round of six-party talks.
A new round of talks has been scheduled for November.
Prior to the deal, North Korea clung to its position of maintaining a civilian nuclear program, while Washington wanted Pyongyang to forego all nuclear programs.
The negotiations had been deadlocked over North Korea's demand that it keep the right to civilian nuclear programs after it disarms, according to an AP report.
While the joint statement has Pyongyang giving up nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs, it also acknowledges that North Korea has stated that it has the the right to "peaceful uses of nuclear energy" and that the provision of a nuclear light-water reactor will be discussed at "an appropriate time." (Full statement)
The joint statement also includes a pledge that Pyongyang and Washington will "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations" -- a considerable change in the tone in relations between the nations.
In his 2002 State of the Union Address, U.S. President George Bush called North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" that is "arming to threaten the peace of the world." As recently as July, Rice called North Korea one of six "outposts of tyranny."
In Monday's statement, "the United States affirmed that is has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons," fulfilling North Korea's desire for a security pledge from the United States.
In a rare interview with CNN in the North Korean capital last month, North Korea's Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Kwan said Pyongyang wanted to pursue a peaceful nuclear program and was willing to adopt "strict supervision" of its nuclear facilities.
Pyongyang ordered U.N. nuclear inspectors out of the country in December 2002, and pulled out of the NPT the following month.
"If someone is concerned with regard to our possible nuclear activities which could lead up to the manufacture of nuclear weapons out of the operations of a light-water nuclear reactor, then we can leave the operations under strict supervision," Kim said, offering to allow the United States a role in monitoring. (Full story)
"We would like to pursue peaceful nuclear energy power generation and this is a quite urgent issue that faces our nation," he said.
"And this is a very appropriate policy in light of the economic situation of our country. That is why we cannot make a concession in this field."
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
Joined: Dec 10, 2003
Posts: 1055 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Sri Lanka
|
Food For Thought!
September 20, 2005 - 11:44 AM
|
|
Luke, When would USA give up their nukes? Any idea ?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Oleg Inozemcev
Joined: Aug 27, 2005
Posts: 13 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: Russia
Province/State: Novosibirsk
City: Novosibirsk
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
September 26, 2005 - 01:10 AM
|
|
While the A-bomb was the "most wonderful thing in the world" for Harry Truman, for Japanese, it was one of the two most barbaric acts against humanity in the 20th century alonside the Holocaust.
Oleg
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
September 26, 2005 - 02:11 AM
|
|
and had it not been used - the land invasion of Japan - which would have been REQUIRED to end WW2 - would have cost 10 times as many lives.
It is easy to judge people for making hard choices - it is harder to understand the choices, or make them yourself.
As for Iran - perhaps you are not familier with the history of the issue - and so do not understand why Europe and the US do not trust Iran -
you see Iran HAD an active nuclear weapons program for 10 years or so that they concealed from the international community.
once they were caught red handed in a lie, they switched tactics to the "peaceful" nuclear program.
If they did not have a history of trying to hide a nuclear weapons program - they would not be facing so much doubt now.
As for getting rid of nuclear weapons all together - I don't know if the issue is so simple - you see these weapons keep superpowers from attacking one another.
China, Russia, the US will not attack eachother directly for this reason - and probably the only reason the Cold War was not a bloodly conventional conflict between Russia and the US was the presense of these weapons.
That said - the idea that so much destructive power is in the hands of one human being is frightening - especially when that man is Bush, or Putin.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Oleg Inozemcev
Joined: Aug 27, 2005
Posts: 13 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: Russia
Province/State: Novosibirsk
City: Novosibirsk
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
September 26, 2005 - 12:47 PM
|
|
Excellent point, Udara.
While I oppose the proliferation of nukes and hope that Iran will not persue it (there is no proof that they are trying one yet), it's utterly hypocritical for the US to pressure on Iran on the grounds that Iran should quit uranium enrichment program.
The United States has the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. It is actually the only country to have actually used those deadly weapons against civilians, and threatened their further use several times again.
Oleg
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Saladin
Joined: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 1000 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
 Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
City: Cairo
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
September 29, 2005 - 05:30 AM
|
|
Originally posted by luke
[B]
As for Iran - perhaps you are not familier with the history of the issue - and so do not understand why Europe and the US do not trust Iran -
[B]
Luke, please note that the ones who played the greatest role behind the rise of the Islamic Revolution were France, and the US...when they felt that the time for Shah Reza Pahlavi was up. They used to "trust" Khomeini and his Islamic Revolution before.
There's a book by Muhammad Hassanein Heykal, called "The Guns of Ayatollah", covering this part very clearly and credibly.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
October 1, 2005 - 01:20 AM
|
|
Well thanks for your interest Leon.
couple of things - to begin the firebombing campeign killed and destroyed far more in Japan then the 2 bombs - and for that matter the Island to Island warfare claimed far more lives in general.
I am glad you feel you understand everything there is to know about the matter - pardon me for having an opinion.
"no one in the world any longer accepts this casuistic fallacy" - so you are speaking for everyone in the world now - or would pretend to know their minds.
And Leon - who is apologizing?
You are right to say that Japan was trying to surrender on its own terms - basically it wanted a conditional surrender that protected their leadership and high government officials from prosecution and left the Emperor in power.
Perhaps it is just too much to expect conditional surrender in a war that has already cost the lives of 500,000 American troops.
MacArthur weeded out the war criminals and left the rest of the government in place - but they worked for him - as the surrender was unconditional.
Now this was a Japanese government that had killed over 6 MILLION people in the previous 6 years.
in addition eneslaved over 12 Million Indonesians, Koreans, Chinese, Thia etc.
The Japanese had killed millions - aside from the 300,000 American soldiers - THEY WERE ALL CIVILIAN.
But look Leon - if you are going to jump up and down about civilian deaths - why not simply state that the Japanese lost about 2.5 Million people in the war - and approx 672,000 were civilian.
the A-bombings only account for a fraction of Japanese civilian deaths in WW2 - the firebombing killed far more. The numbers you have for the A bombs is higher then any source I have seen - but I don't intend to quibble over figures.
Now it can easily be said that Lemay (who ran the Airforce) and all his runs were War Crimes - once they figured out that Japanese cities were build from Wood - and Lemay lit a match.
I just have a little intellectual integrity - it is easy to condemn them - it is harder to actually defeat the Japanese - and war is hell.
also I fail to see your point about Russia entering the war with Japan - there was never any question that Japan would be defeated at that point - it was a matter of how - and how many would be lost in the process.
"Wouldn't it be wiser to wait for a couple of days and see what would happen with the Soviet help?" - Leon
Again - a land invasion is a land invasion - whether Russian troops are involved is not really that relavent - the outcome would have been the same - Allied victory at the cost of a few million lives.
"That's not true in any sense. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 concluded: "It seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."
This is a study that was conducted in 46 - when the bombs went down in 45 - and speculates what might have created unconditional surender in the Japanese -
If this was a report issued before the bombings that Truman ignored - it would be more relevant.
Instead it seems more like Monday morning Quarterbacking.
I understand the dimensions of the bombing which involve making a statement to Russia (ie "we have the bomb" but really it was to put an END to 6 years of warfare that had cost a total of 50 MILLION lives.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Oleg Inozemcev
Joined: Aug 27, 2005
Posts: 13 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: Russia
Province/State: Novosibirsk
City: Novosibirsk
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
October 1, 2005 - 01:39 AM
|
|
Originally posted by luke
and had it not been used - the land invasion of Japan - which would have been REQUIRED to end WW2 - would have cost 10 times as many lives.
I got news for you, luke. Save patriotic apologetics for the criminal part of the American past, no one in the world any longer accepts this casuistic fallacy. What you are saying is absolute nonsense.
You are missing several points here. Let me list them.
Couldn't the US policymakers have chosen non-civilian target?
Couldn't the US policymakers have chosen an area less populated with CIVILIANS?
Ok, they bombed Hiroshina, why Nagasaki? (Remember, two kinds of A-bombs were used for each: one uranium-enriched and the other plutonium-enriched)
The US bombed Hirishina on August 6 whereas it had been expected that the Red Army would have joined the war against Japan on August 8 (and they did). Wouldn't it be wiser to wait for a couple of days and see what would happen with the Soviet help? Why the US was in such a hurry?
70,000 people perished immediately in Hiroshima. Another 70.000 within the next 6 months, and in total 240,000 people died. Add to this the casualties of Nagasaki and you have about 400,000 killed with the "most wonderful thing in the world." According to your assumption, the land invasion which was "required" to end the World War II would have cost 4,000,000 lives. That's not true in any sense.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 concluded:
"It seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
This was also supported by General Dwight Eisenhower.
And after all, Japan tried to negotiate capitulation several times, particularly through the Japanese Embassy in Moscow. The Japanese' only condition was to allow them keep their Emperor, which had a symbolic significance to the Japanese. The US warmongers who defeated Japan by dropping barbaric atomic bombs kept the Emperor in his place anyway after the surrender.
As you see, your argument is completely false.
In addition, the US has threated their further use again and again: against North Korea, against poor Vietnamese whom the US mercilessly devastated. Did you forget Nixon's "madman theory"?
In conclustion, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS was a barbaric and racist act intended at targeting the Soviet Union.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
October 1, 2005 - 02:02 AM
|
|
"I did not say it was hypocritical for Europe, but I said it was hypocritical for the US to put pressure on Iran. It's up to countries like Canada, Brazil, Scandinavian countries, and above all the United NATIONS (not states) to deal with the issue of Iranian nuclear enrichment program. Not up to the US or Russia." - Leon2005
None of the countries you named have the capability to implement any kind of pressure on Iran. What exactly do you imagine Canada or Brazil will actually DO to stop Iran from moving forward - they cannot apply sufficient political pressure, they cannot apply economic pressure and they have no way of even having the threat of military action.
It seems like the countries will say "please" and then "pretty please" - to which the Iranians will say "no"
Also you are simply being delusional if you imagine that the US and Russia will sit this one out.
Russia is SUPPLYING Iran for Christ sakes.
Regardless you denoting it as Hypocritical for the US and not Europe is just stupid - the Europeans have nuclear arsinals (except for Germany) - basically you personally agree with the European politics more, so you render a purely personal opinion.
What is the difference - the Europeans don't have a history of propping up dictators and or occupying/colonizing middle-eastern countries?
I would agree that the UN is the forum for this, and I beleive the US and the Europeans have not wavered in agreeing - so what are you so worked up about?
Is there some instance you can point to where the US has suggested it would not address the Iranian issue through the UN?
"the US and Israel -- possessed largest nuclear arsenal in the world" - Leon
I hope you are not going to be in the habit of distorting facts just to make a point.
Please show me some information where Israel has the largest Nuclear arsinal in the world. The US has the Biggest, after them it is easily Russia, China, France, England, Pakistan - and then it is SPECULATED that Israel has an arsinal about the same size as India's.
As for calling the Soviets barbaric and not assesing our own actions the same way - well DUH. That kind of crap happens all the time all over the world - when you do it it is heroic, when they do it it is terrible.
What are you trying to prove with this nonsense - that diplomates spin things?
"Both are more dangerous than Iran's policy." - no they are not - the spread of Nuclear weapons through some of the radical regeimes of the Middle East is a danger with few peers.
"Iran's two major enemies -- the US and Israel" - Leon
Can you please tell me why Israel is such a "great enemy" - have they ever attacked the Iranians? Have they ever committed any kind of act of war whatsoever against Iran?
Which country is marching ballistic missles through their capital with messeges written promising the destruction of the other country?
Parhaps it is Iran parading missles with "wipe Israel off the Map" written on them and not the other way around.
Stated simply whatever arsinal Israel has it has had for some time now - and has not used despite multiple invasion attempts.
Iran looks far more likely to attack Israel with such a weapon than the other way around - as it is the Stated Public Policy of their government to destroy the "Zionist State"
You are trying to claim that Iran has cause for defense purposes - but they are the ones who are openly hostile toward the Israelis - so I just don't buy it.
You are busy calling America and Israel "racist" - when to begin Iran's conflict with the US has nothing to do with Race - you hoestly think that is playing a role in our policy with Iran - or rather the geopolitical consequences of the country and their ntural rescources.
In truth it is the Iranian leadership[ which is racist - as evidenced by their clear racist hatred of Israel - why do you think they are such "enemies" - you think it might have anything to do with a racist hatred of Jews?
Anyway I am familier with the Ayatollah's rise to power - at some level he seized power. Regardless any collaboration between himself and the American government ended rather dramatically when he kidnapped the Embassey.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Oleg Inozemcev
Joined: Aug 27, 2005
Posts: 13 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: Russia
Province/State: Novosibirsk
City: Novosibirsk
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
October 1, 2005 - 02:02 AM
|
|
Now let me reply about Iran
You see, I did not say it was hypocritical for Europe, but I said it was hypocritical for the US to put pressure on Iran. It's up to countries like Canada, Brazil, Scandinavian countries, and above all the United NATIONS (not states) to deal with the issue of Iranian nuclear enrichment program. Not up to the US or Russia.
See the US and Israeli hypocrisy here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CFF62E0F-55B6-4555-B7A4-3DB238FF75B4.htm
Yet, I said there is no proof that Iranians are trying to get nuclear weapons, not that they "weren't" trying to get.
Then though I don't support building nuclear weapons by Iran since the world is better off without them, I can understand why they were trying to build nukes.
For Iranians, it was Iranian military and economic weakness that allowed M16-CIA Axis of Evil to subvert the Iranian parlaimentary democracy in 1953 which ENTIRELY changed the course of history of that country and even affected the course of history in the Middle East. It was the Shah's American backed tyranny and his CIA-trained SAVAK that gave rise to Ayathollah Khomeini. Read here (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Torture/Torture's_Teachers.html) how CIA sent SAVAK interrogation manuals containing torture techniques that the CIA had previously borrowed from the NAZIS!
Then the US supported Iraq in Saddam's bloody war against Iran.
Ok, let me give you another insightful example. When the Soviets shoot the South Korean airplance in 1983 NEAR THE BORDERS OF THE USSR, it was "barbaric" in the words of Shultz. There could not be any justification for that. However, in 1988, when the US shoot down an Iranian passenger airplance 8,000 MILES AWAY FROM THE US BORDER and near the IRANIAN BORDER -- in the Persian Gulf! -- it was a "mistake." It was rather the Iranian fault since they allowed their airplane to fly in a war zone area.
This is not the end of the story. Two top military officials who were responsible for shooting down the Iranian airplance were awarded for their [pathetic] "heroism." President Bush Senior put it blatantly:
"I am not going to apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are."
In addition, the US in total paid more than $2,000,000 in compensation to NON-IRANIAN victims of the airplane shooting.
After such blatantly racist bullying by the superpower and given the fact that Iran's two major enemies -- the US and Israel -- possessed largest nuclear arsenal in the world, it's understandable that they were trying to build nukes. One may disagree with what others doing but still understand.
The US is pursuing the militarization of space, which is much more dangerous than Iran's pursuing of nuclear weapons. And Russia will soon have in it's Army new hypersonic nuclear missiles, which will be able to outmaneuvr the American missile defense system which is supposed to be built by the year 2007 at the cost of $200,000,000 Both are more dangerous than Iran's policy.
Do you see the hypocrisy of the superpowers?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Matt
Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Posts: 86 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: New Zealand
Province/State: Auckland
City: Manukau
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
October 1, 2005 - 05:40 AM
|
|
it seems a strange thing to try and justify man's most stupid pursuit..
the atomic bomb's dropped simply had to happen, the reason being that it did happen. They were minor attacks compared to the rest of the bombing that occured. Civilians have been the target of war for centuries. Wipe out production and you wipe out the enemies capacity for total war, No nation that entered the war is guilt free.
you can't change history, cannot make assumptions about what would have happened if it was different.
i think the abandonment of any weapons program can only bring about the better treatment of the people in Korea...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Matt
Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Posts: 86 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: New Zealand
Province/State: Auckland
City: Manukau
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
October 4, 2005 - 06:51 AM
|
|
"you fail to explain why the choise was not non-civilian target"
Targeting civilians is part of modern/total warfare. The change that industry bought to war was that war became all consuming of society. People were put into production of munitions and other wartime goods. The nations with the most resources behind them, ie: Germany at the start of WWI, was a major rising economy... If you target the civilians, you can instill fear, decrease morale, and then decrease production, leading to a decrease in production.
The atomic bomb was near invisible to the Japanese, they thought the plane dropping it was just a scout plane. Imaging the fear people would have every time a plane flew over head? I understand how the allies justify it..
but it doesnt mean i like it or condone war at all!!! war is the most moronic thing man can do.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
October 4, 2005 - 11:14 AM
|
|
"Excuse for a second. When did I call Soviets barbaric?" - Leon
Right here
"Ok, let me give you another insightful example. When the Soviets shoot the South Korean airplance in 1983 NEAR THE BORDERS OF THE USSR, it was "barbaric" in the words of Shultz." - Leon
you were quoting an American terming the Soviets "barbaric" - to which I replied that just because a diplomat in the middle of the Cold War used some bad press againat Russia - doesn't mean anything.
Who cares, it is not significant. I am sure plenty of Russian Politicians talked smack about the US in those days too.
"they are NOT violating nuclear non-proliferation treaties just like the US and Russia." - Leon
What aspects of the Treaty do you imagine the US is in violation of - are trying to invalidate the US's participation in the NPT because of an action at the end of WW2 60 years ago - is that really your arguement?
Leon, Think about this for a second - do you honestly beleive that the US and Russia are not going to have anything to say about a subject like Nuclear Weapons in the Middle-East?
Whether you like it or not bro - are you kidding? If too many Nukes started spreading through the middle-east - the chances are fairly good that one of those Nukes will find their way into New York or Washington.
And the point is if you want to select an intermediatry to take some of the fire out of the situation - you should be talking about countries like India - a Nutral Regional Power.
Not Brazil - what the hell are they going to do?
India has to volunteer for that task, and getting inbetween the US and Iran is not a job India seems to be volunteering for.
I know it would be nice to think of the UN as the solution for all the worlds problems - it is rife with corruption.
The UN failed utterly in Iraq - they were getting bribed by Saddam, or at least enough people were - to keep the UN continuasly re-resolving every resolution.
There was a PROBLEM in Iraq when Saddam was in control - ask the Iraqis on this website what it was like to live under Saddam - what did the UN DO about it? When he gassed the Kurds - what did the UN DO?
When there was Genocide in Darfur - what did the UN DO?
pass a resolution that said "They should stop."
They didn't even call it a Genocide - which is what it was.
What is the UN doing about the North Korean Nuclear issue?
They can't make up their mind about anything.
Obviously I sincerely hope that this can be resolved
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Oleg Inozemcev
Joined: Aug 27, 2005
Posts: 13 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: Russia
Province/State: Novosibirsk
City: Novosibirsk
|
Re: North Korea abondons Nukes
October 4, 2005 - 11:40 AM
|
|
Hi luke, thanks for replying so soon.
My impression is that since the firebombings were more destructive than the atomic bombs, it actually strengenths my argument that it was gratutious to use the nukes given the fact that the Japanese had been already torn apart.
If you want to know my opinion whether it was a crime to conduct the six-day firebombing that killed perhaps as many as 600,000 Japanese in Tokyo, yes, I do. It was a crime. So was slaughtering tens of thousands of German civilians in bombing Dresden by Allied Forces. So was the Soviet brutality in treating Germans after occupying East Germany (for example, perhaps as many as 2,000,000 German women were raped by Soviet troops with the official condoning of Stalin.)
Excuse for representing the rest of the world for a time. I do not claim to know their minds, but I have never met a person outside the United States arguing that dropping nukes was justified. If there is anyone, let them say. If anyone here oustide the US argues that it was justified, well, I am mistaken then. But I personally hold on to my position that it was gratutious.
luke, the only condition Japanese made through their ambassador in Russia was keeping the Emperor and only. They did not demand to keep their high government officials. Protecting the Emperor had a symbolic significance for them.
Yes, Japanese fascist leaders perpetrayed horrendous crimes, I absolutely agree. But does it mean that the Allies should have resembled the fascists in treating their [the axis's] civilians?
The numbers I got for the A-bomb civilians is from Euronews exlusive reports during the sixtieth anniversary of dropping atomic bombs. Even if it's 250,000, it's not a fraction of the total civilian casualty. It's a significant number.
luke, it's not the question of 200,000 or 400,000 or 50,000, but the question of using such deadly weapons knowing that it would cost heavy civilian casualties.
Again, you fail to explain why the choise was not non-civilian target. Was it necessary to drop it on civilian-populated area to show the effects of it?
Racial policy did make an effect as I said. Japanese born in the US were sent to concentration camps, but not Germans.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
