Those blithering, probably drunken, possibly insane twits Berend de
Boer and Redbaiter are on record stating that the radio station
Newstalk ZB is full of (wait for it)...."leftists". Of course, the
converse is true.
Yours sincerely,
Morrissey Breen
Boer and Redbaiter are on record stating that the radio station
Newstalk ZB is full of (wait for it)...."leftists". Of course, the
converse is true.
Every day of the week, Newstalk ZB is a source of almost unrelieved,
non-stop bigotry, beginning with the sneering, sardonic, rabidly
pro-Bush, darkie-hating, torture-supporting Paul Holmes (6 to 8:30
a.m.), through the even more extreme Leighton Smith (8:30 - noon),
through the looney Christian rightist Danny Watson (noon - 4:00 p.m.),
through the sneering, vicious pro-Bush, pro-torture Larry Williams
(4:00 to 7:00 p.m.), the nutty, pompous, drunken racist Murray Deaker
(7:00 - 8:00 p.m.), on through the bubble-headed, bitchy, glib and
politically naive Kerre Williams (8:00 to midnight), and onto the
unhinged, unread, uninformed, vile, defiantly right wing zealots like
James King who blather their ignorance through the small hours until
the "good man" Holmes takes over again.
non-stop bigotry, beginning with the sneering, sardonic, rabidly
pro-Bush, darkie-hating, torture-supporting Paul Holmes (6 to 8:30
a.m.), through the even more extreme Leighton Smith (8:30 - noon),
through the looney Christian rightist Danny Watson (noon - 4:00 p.m.),
through the sneering, vicious pro-Bush, pro-torture Larry Williams
(4:00 to 7:00 p.m.), the nutty, pompous, drunken racist Murray Deaker
(7:00 - 8:00 p.m.), on through the bubble-headed, bitchy, glib and
politically naive Kerre Williams (8:00 to midnight), and onto the
unhinged, unread, uninformed, vile, defiantly right wing zealots like
James King who blather their ignorance through the small hours until
the "good man" Holmes takes over again.
Of course Newstalk ZB on the weekends is, sadly, no better. It did
not, therefore, surprise this writer (moi) to hear one MIKE HOSKING
this morning praising the rogue American administration's lapdog in
glowing, starstruck tones: "Blair gave one of the GREATEST SPEECHES
ever made," he said, in reverent, starstruck tones, and proceeded to
eulogise that craven, lying weasel as if he was Abraham Lincoln or
Winston Churchill or David Lange.
not, therefore, surprise this writer (moi) to hear one MIKE HOSKING
this morning praising the rogue American administration's lapdog in
glowing, starstruck tones: "Blair gave one of the GREATEST SPEECHES
ever made," he said, in reverent, starstruck tones, and proceeded to
eulogise that craven, lying weasel as if he was Abraham Lincoln or
Winston Churchill or David Lange.
Enraged, this writer dashed off the following e-mail and sent it just
before the 10:00 a.m. news:
Dear Mike,
before the 10:00 a.m. news:
Dear Mike,
You say that Tony Blair showed "leadership" and
"courage" and "integrity" in his decision to support
the illegal invasion of Iraq.
"courage" and "integrity" in his decision to support
the illegal invasion of Iraq.
You will no doubt be aware of the Hutton Inquiry
proceedings, which established quite clearly that
Blair, Straw, Hoon, and many other British cabinet
members lied to parliament and the nation, making up
all the "evidence" to justify the invasion, and
cynically repeating the lie about "weapons of mass
destruction".
proceedings, which established quite clearly that
Blair, Straw, Hoon, and many other British cabinet
members lied to parliament and the nation, making up
all the "evidence" to justify the invasion, and
cynically repeating the lie about "weapons of mass
destruction".
What "leadership" or "courage" did Blair display in
bowing to the rogue U.S. government's demands to send
troops to invade Iraq?
bowing to the rogue U.S. government's demands to send
troops to invade Iraq?
I would suggest to you that Blair is more of a spaniel
than a bulldog.
than a bulldog.
And would you mind explaining exactly how Blair
demonstrates "integrity"?
demonstrates "integrity"?
Yours sincerely,
Morrissey Breen
P.S. I like your musical taste - Victoria Williams
is fabulous. It's a pity you don't show such
discrimination and intelligence in your political judgements.
is fabulous. It's a pity you don't show such
discrimination and intelligence in your political judgements.
******************************
One hour later, the old Breen inbox has nothing in it, and Hosking has
not called moi an "idiot" on air yet. He continues to maintain a
silence closely resembling stupidity.
not called moi an "idiot" on air yet. He continues to maintain a
silence closely resembling stupidity.
Will keep ya posted, guys!
Click here to Reply
 |
Why don't you tell us what you _really_ feel about the radio talkback hosts?
Gib
|
On 3 Oct 2003 16:23:24 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
holy shit, I agree with Hosking!
Breen) wrote:
>Of course Newstalk ZB on the weekends is, sadly, no better. It did
>not, therefore, surprise this writer (moi) to hear one MIKE HOSKING
>this morning praising the rogue American administration's lapdog in
>glowing, starstruck tones: "Blair gave one of the GREATEST SPEECHES
>not, therefore, surprise this writer (moi) to hear one MIKE HOSKING
>this morning praising the rogue American administration's lapdog in
>glowing, starstruck tones: "Blair gave one of the GREATEST SPEECHES
holy shit, I agree with Hosking!
|
paulsy wrote:
- show quoted text -
And fair enough. Blair gave a pretty good speech that laid out the
options he was faced with. He also noted some of the letters he had
received from families who had lost loved ones who either agreed with his
position or who vilified him.
options he was faced with. He also noted some of the letters he had
received from families who had lost loved ones who either agreed with his
position or who vilified him.
At the end of the day, Blair, Bush, Howard and some others did pretty
good and Blair has given a good speech explaining his position.
good and Blair has given a good speech explaining his position.
JC
|
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:58:59 +1200, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
wrote:
>At the end of the day, Blair, Bush, Howard and some others did pretty
>good and Blair has given a good speech explaining his position.
>good and Blair has given a good speech explaining his position.
This almost brings back that thread in which Cliff argued about what
constitutes a fact.
constitutes a fact.
While I don't lament the passing of Saddam Hussein, a horrendous
precedent has been set. Can we now intervene in the affairs of every
sovereign state who might sooner or later do something we don't like?
I find it hard to categores what they did as "pretty good". Good ends
by bad means are always a worry.
precedent has been set. Can we now intervene in the affairs of every
sovereign state who might sooner or later do something we don't like?
I find it hard to categores what they did as "pretty good". Good ends
by bad means are always a worry.
And given that Saddam probably never had a nuclear weapon, how did we
let North Korea get as far as it has?
let North Korea get as far as it has?
And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
|
In article <islsnv000v9d6gk0fp11jbamkdh3g
brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
> While I don't lament the passing of Saddam Hussein, a horrendous
> precedent has been set. Can we now intervene in the affairs of every
> sovereign state who might sooner or later do something we don't like?
> And given that Saddam probably never had a nuclear weapon, how did we
> let North Korea get as far as it has?
> And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
> While I don't lament the passing of Saddam Hussein, a horrendous
> precedent has been set. Can we now intervene in the affairs of every
> sovereign state who might sooner or later do something we don't like?
Iraq was not a sovereign state but a state on probation with an
obligation to adhere to numerous security council resolutions as
the price for an armistice.
obligation to adhere to numerous security council resolutions as
the price for an armistice.
Proclaiming state sovereignity to be superior to human rights
only gave bad governments the license to oppress their own people
rather than contribute to international peace.
only gave bad governments the license to oppress their own people
rather than contribute to international peace.
> I find it hard to categores what they did as "pretty good". Good ends
> by bad means are always a worry.
> by bad means are always a worry.
And what do you propose should have been done? Pretty much
everything had been tried over the past twelve years with
dismal results.
everything had been tried over the past twelve years with
dismal results.
> And given that Saddam probably never had a nuclear weapon, how did we
> let North Korea get as far as it has?
Simple inaction by the Clinton Administration.
> And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
Because they don't have a bad habit of using them against other
people.
people.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
- show quoted text -
What did the US use in Vietnam? Mallow Puffs?
|
In article <3F7E73C2...@xtra.co.nz>
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> >
> > In article <islsnv000v9d6gk0fp11jbamkdh3g
> > brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> >
> > In article <islsnv000v9d6gk0fp11jbamkdh3g
> > brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
> > > And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> > > Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
> > Because they don't have a bad habit of using them against other
> > people.
> > > Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
> > Because they don't have a bad habit of using them against other
> > people.
> What did the US use in Vietnam? Mallow Puffs?
Naplam and Agent Orange are not weapons of mass destruction in
the ordinary meaning of the term.
the ordinary meaning of the term.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 19:16:18 +1200, Sam <sa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>What did the US use in Vietnam? Mallow Puffs?
"weapons of mass destruction". IIRC, and I can probably look it up,
nukes were discussed at one stage but rejected due to China and Russia
having an active interest in the area (Cold war remember) as well as
world opinion and it was unliklely to achieve the desired ends.
geoff
|
Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
> In article <3F7E73C2...@xtra.co.nz>
> > Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <islsnv000v9d6gk0fp11jbamkdh3g
> > > brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
>
> > > > And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> > > > Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
>
> > > Because they don't have a bad habit of using them against other
> > > people.
>
> > What did the US use in Vietnam? Mallow Puffs?
>
> Naplam and Agent Orange are not weapons of mass destruction in
> the ordinary meaning of the term.
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
>
> In article <3F7E73C2...@xtra.co.nz>
> > Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <islsnv000v9d6gk0fp11jbamkdh3g
> > > brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
>
> > > > And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> > > > Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
>
> > > Because they don't have a bad habit of using them against other
> > > people.
>
> > What did the US use in Vietnam? Mallow Puffs?
>
> Naplam and Agent Orange are not weapons of mass destruction in
> the ordinary meaning of the term.
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
More tonnage of high explosives was dropped on Vietnam than was
dropped in WWII.
So what's your definition of mass destruction? Hamburg and Dresden
weren't subjected to weapons of mass destruction?
Check the casualties numbers.
dropped in WWII.
So what's your definition of mass destruction? Hamburg and Dresden
weren't subjected to weapons of mass destruction?
Check the casualties numbers.
Sam
|
>And given that Saddam probably never had a nuclear weapon, how did we
>let North Korea get as far as it has?
>
>let North Korea get as far as it has?
>
Because their self imposed isolationism makes them a far more difficult
and dangerous proposition to deal with than iraq.
--
Bryce
and dangerous proposition to deal with than iraq.
--
Bryce
|
- show quoted text -
How about a FBI perspective?
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation sometimes uses an
even broader definition of WMD: "A weapon of mass
destruction (WMD), though typically associated with
nuclear/radiological, chemical, or biological agents, may
also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing
of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma in 1995. A weapon crosses the WMD threshold
when the consequences of its release overwhelm local
responders."
even broader definition of WMD: "A weapon of mass
destruction (WMD), though typically associated with
nuclear/radiological, chemical, or biological agents, may
also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing
of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma in 1995. A weapon crosses the WMD threshold
when the consequences of its release overwhelm local
responders."
You really think the Vietnamese had any defense to the
carpet bombing?
carpet bombing?
Sam
|
In article <3F7E7A5C...@xtra.co.nz>
> More tonnage of high explosives was dropped on Vietnam than was
> dropped in WWII.
> dropped in WWII.
Neither are such explosives considered to be weapons of mass
destruction. Expanding that definition would mean every shell
fired from a big gun would be a weapon of mass destruction.
destruction. Expanding that definition would mean every shell
fired from a big gun would be a weapon of mass destruction.
> So what's your definition of mass destruction?
Atomic, Biological and Chemical weapons is the standard
definition.
definition.
> Hamburg and Dresden
> weren't subjected to weapons of mass destruction?
> weren't subjected to weapons of mass destruction?
Correct.
> Check the casualties numbers.
Which is irrelevant to the definition. Using your logic,
one would declare bullets to be weapons of mass destruction
because a large number of people died from bullet wounds in
all modern wars.
one would declare bullets to be weapons of mass destruction
because a large number of people died from bullet wounds in
all modern wars.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
In article <3F7E85AB...@xtra.co.nz>
> You really think the Vietnamese had any defense to the
> carpet bombing?
> carpet bombing?
Longterm residents at the Hanoi Hilton would answer "yes"
to that question.
to that question.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
- show quoted text -
I suggest you consult with the FBI on what they consider WMD.
Standard definition doesn't exist anymore.
Standard definition doesn't exist anymore.
As for Hamburg and Dresden, just because the term hadn't been
coined then, only an idiot would consider that those bombings
didn't result in mass destruction. Still, you've made a career
out of being a nit picking pedant.
coined then, only an idiot would consider that those bombings
didn't result in mass destruction. Still, you've made a career
out of being a nit picking pedant.
As for bullets, being wmd, I suggest you pick a better example,
as in WWI, in excess of 100,000 cartridges were fired per battle
death. In WWII, when being specifically targeted, even the US Air
Force averaged over 13,000 cartridges per enemy aircraft shot down.
as in WWI, in excess of 100,000 cartridges were fired per battle
death. In WWII, when being specifically targeted, even the US Air
Force averaged over 13,000 cartridges per enemy aircraft shot down.
Sam
|
- show quoted text -
The Vietnamese shared their defense strategy with their POWS?
Yeah, right!
|
In article <3F7E8B3F...@xtra.co.nz>
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> As for Hamburg and Dresden, just because the term hadn't been
> coined then, only an idiot would consider that those bombings
> didn't result in mass destruction.
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> > Which is irrelevant to the definition. Using your logic,
> > one would declare bullets to be weapons of mass destruction
> > because a large number of people died from bullet wounds in
> > all modern wars.
> > one would declare bullets to be weapons of mass destruction
> > because a large number of people died from bullet wounds in
> > all modern wars.
> I suggest you consult with the FBI on what they consider WMD.
The FBI is not an authority on the topic. Your quote is just
some legal advocacy that would, if taken seriously, would force
many nations to fight with one hand tied behind their back in
conflicts with an inferior foe.
some legal advocacy that would, if taken seriously, would force
many nations to fight with one hand tied behind their back in
conflicts with an inferior foe.
> Standard definition doesn't exist anymore.
Yes, it does.
> As for Hamburg and Dresden, just because the term hadn't been
> coined then, only an idiot would consider that those bombings
> didn't result in mass destruction.
Which I've never denied. What I did point out that merely
because mass destruction took place does not mean that the
weapons that caused it were weapons of mass destruction.
That is why I made the point about bullets and artillery
shells.
because mass destruction took place does not mean that the
weapons that caused it were weapons of mass destruction.
That is why I made the point about bullets and artillery
shells.
> As for bullets, being wmd, I suggest you pick a better example,
> as in WWI, in excess of 100,000 cartridges were fired per battle
> death.
> as in WWI, in excess of 100,000 cartridges were fired per battle
> death.
Which matters not to the eventual mass destruction. Furthermore
your implied methology would prevent weapons from being effective.
My example stands and is an effective rebuttal.
your implied methology would prevent weapons from being effective.
My example stands and is an effective rebuttal.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
In article <3F7E8D72...@xtra.co.nz>
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> > In article <3F7E85AB...@xtra.co.nz>
> > > You really think the Vietnamese had any defense to the
> > > carpet bombing?
> > Longterm residents at the Hanoi Hilton would answer "yes"
> > to that question.
> > > You really think the Vietnamese had any defense to the
> > > carpet bombing?
> > Longterm residents at the Hanoi Hilton would answer "yes"
> > to that question.
> The Vietnamese shared their defense strategy with their POWS?
Nope. The residents of Hanoi Hilton were captured bomber
pilots, the very people you claim that the Vietnamese were
defenseless against.
--Peter Metcalfe
pilots, the very people you claim that the Vietnamese were
defenseless against.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
"Sam" <sa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3F7E73C2.87DA9976@xtra.
>
> What did the US use in Vietnam? Mallow Puffs?
> What did the US use in Vietnam? Mallow Puffs?
ROTFL!
|
Brian Harmer wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:58:59 +1200, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >At the end of the day, Blair, Bush, Howard and some others did pretty
> >good and Blair has given a good speech explaining his position.
>
> This almost brings back that thread in which Cliff argued about what
> constitutes a fact.
>
> While I don't lament the passing of Saddam Hussein, a horrendous
> precedent has been set. Can we now intervene in the affairs of every
> sovereign state who might sooner or later do something we don't like?
> wrote:
>
> >At the end of the day, Blair, Bush, Howard and some others did pretty
> >good and Blair has given a good speech explaining his position.
>
> This almost brings back that thread in which Cliff argued about what
> constitutes a fact.
>
> While I don't lament the passing of Saddam Hussein, a horrendous
> precedent has been set. Can we now intervene in the affairs of every
> sovereign state who might sooner or later do something we don't like?
Yes. The age of sovereignty is giving way to that of common international
good.
Depending on the situation, that "good" will be the US and Brits taking
down Saddam or the EU imposing Kyoto and the ICC.
good.
Depending on the situation, that "good" will be the US and Brits taking
down Saddam or the EU imposing Kyoto and the ICC.
>
> I find it hard to categores what they did as "pretty good". Good ends
> by bad means are always a worry.
> I find it hard to categores what they did as "pretty good". Good ends
> by bad means are always a worry.
Good or bad of the above are simply your repost to my comments. I suggest
that the important issue is whether the Iraqis and the international
community are better off with Saddam's going.
that the important issue is whether the Iraqis and the international
community are better off with Saddam's going.
>
>
> And given that Saddam probably never had a nuclear weapon, how did we
> let North Korea get as far as it has?
>
> And given that Saddam probably never had a nuclear weapon, how did we
> let North Korea get as far as it has?
Because there are friends in South Korea to consider, plus Russia and
China to confront if we move too fast on NK. Look at the atlas, the US and
allies are poorly positioned to do much if China isnt on side. In
addition, Korea doesn't pose a martyrdom culture like Islam and is
physically isolated from potential allies.
China to confront if we move too fast on NK. Look at the atlas, the US and
allies are poorly positioned to do much if China isnt on side. In
addition, Korea doesn't pose a martyrdom culture like Islam and is
physically isolated from potential allies.
>
>
> And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
>
> And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
Because they tolerate rugby and cricket.
JC
|
+++ERRATA++++ERRATA++++ERRATA+
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) - c'est MOI, mes amis!!!! -
wrote a rather intemperate assessment of Newstalk ZB host Danny Watson
in message news:<fb3a0456.0310031523.
referring to him, perhaps a tad ungenerously, as....
>
> the looney Christian rightist Danny Watson.
morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) - c'est MOI, mes amis!!!! -
wrote a rather intemperate assessment of Newstalk ZB host Danny Watson
in message news:<fb3a0456.0310031523.
referring to him, perhaps a tad ungenerously, as....
>
> the looney Christian rightist Danny Watson.
On reflection, it is clear that Watson is NOT a "looney". On your
print-outs, please replace the word "looney" with the word "smug".
print-outs, please replace the word "looney" with the word "smug".
Another error, sheer carelessness this time - occurred when I
described....
>
> the bubble-headed, bitchy, glib and politically naive Kerre Williams.
described....
>
> the bubble-headed, bitchy, glib and politically naive Kerre Williams.
Of course, that should read: "the bubble-headed, bitchy, glib and
politically naive Kerre WOODHAM."
politically naive Kerre WOODHAM."
The errors are regretted.
|
pau...@yahoo.com (paulsy) wrote in message news:<3f7f3ac5...@News.
- show quoted text -
Moron. You've been filed under SUCKERS.
|
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3F7E5393...@ihug.
>
> Blair gave a pretty good speech that laid out the
> options he was faced with.
> Blair gave a pretty good speech that laid out the
> options he was faced with.
He lied. The options he faced were: (a) observe international law and
resist the pressure of the rogue Bush administration to join its
pirate action; or (b) cave in to U.S. pressure, and lie to justify
that caving in.
resist the pressure of the rogue Bush administration to join its
pirate action; or (b) cave in to U.S. pressure, and lie to justify
that caving in.
>
> He also noted some of the letters he had
> received from families who had lost loved ones who either agreed with his
> position or who vilified him.
> He also noted some of the letters he had
> received from families who had lost loved ones who either agreed with his
> position or who vilified him.
Pointing out Mr Blair's lies is not "vilifying" him. It is exposing
him. He has vilified himself.
him. He has vilified himself.
>
> At the end of the day, Blair, Bush, Howard and some others did pretty
> good and Blair has given a good speech explaining his position.
> At the end of the day, Blair, Bush, Howard and some others did pretty
> good and Blair has given a good speech explaining his position.
Blair, Bush, Howard, Berlusconi conspired to lie about "weapons of
mass destruction", as has been shown clearly in the last few weeks.
It must be admitted that they did a "pretty good" job of intimidating
and bamboozling political opposition and the mainstream media.
mass destruction", as has been shown clearly in the last few weeks.
It must be admitted that they did a "pretty good" job of intimidating
and bamboozling political opposition and the mainstream media.
However, truth will out, as the Hutton Inquiry and the Washington
betrayal scandal are making clear. The fact they lied can no longer
be credibly denied.
betrayal scandal are making clear. The fact they lied can no longer
be credibly denied.
Why on earth would Mr Cawston, or anyone, want to back these reptiles
now of all times?
now of all times?
|
- show quoted text -
lol. you ain't seen nothing yet...
the north korean leaders are utter garbage and no different than the former
leadership of iraq or other organized crime bosses or communist
governments, in the world.
leadership of iraq or other organized crime bosses or communist
governments, in the world.
N-U-K-E the fuckers
|
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3F7E9E7E.2D87DFBD@ihug.> Brian Harmer wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:58:59 +1200, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> > wrote:
> > >At the end of the day, Blair, Bush, Howard and some others did pretty
> > >good and Blair has given a good speech explaining his position.
> > While I don't lament the passing of Saddam Hussein, a horrendous
> > precedent has been set. Can we now intervene in the affairs of every
> > sovereign state who might sooner or later do something we don't like?
>
> Yes. The age of sovereignty is giving way to that of common international
> good.
> Depending on the situation, that "good" will be the US and Brits taking
> down Saddam or the EU imposing Kyoto and the ICC.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, gunboat diplomacy is not a new
invention.
invention.
Nor is it a sign of progress, unless you're facing the wrong way.
> > I find it hard to categores what they did as "pretty good". Good ends
> > by bad means are always a worry.
>
> Good or bad of the above are simply your repost to my comments. I suggest
> that the important issue is whether the Iraqis and the international
> community are better off with Saddam's going.
The Iraqis may well be, while the international community may not be.
(Even the status of the Iraqi's is too soon to judge, but it is relatively
straightforward to predict how the precedents being set will be abused in
future. Already the hawks are looking askance at Syria, Iran, Jordan, North
Korea.)
straightforward to predict how the precedents being set will be abused in
future. Already the hawks are looking askance at Syria, Iran, Jordan, North
Korea.)
But we know the pattern well enough: when things turn out badly, the hawks
who have been responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands, will say "But we meant well!" - the catchcry of the hegemonists
throughout political history.
who have been responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands, will say "But we meant well!" - the catchcry of the hegemonists
throughout political history.
> > And given that Saddam probably never had a nuclear weapon, how did we
> > let North Korea get as far as it has?
>
> Because there are friends in South Korea to consider, plus Russia and
> China to confront if we move too fast on NK. Look at the atlas, the US
and
> allies are poorly positioned to do much if China isnt on side. In
> addition, Korea doesn't pose a martyrdom culture like Islam and is
> physically isolated from potential allies.
But is developing missile technology to overcome that (from its
perspective) deficiency.
Allied to its nuclear potential and a "we have nothing to lose" mentality,
North Korea would seem to pose a far more immediate and severe threat than
Saddam ever did.
North Korea would seem to pose a far more immediate and severe threat than
Saddam ever did.
> > And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> > Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
>
> Because they tolerate rugby and cricket.
Quite right.
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 18:45:08 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
<metcalph@NOTquicksilver.
<metcalph@NOTquicksilver.
>In article <islsnv000v9d6gk0fp11jbamkdh3g
>brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
>> And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
>> Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
>
>Because they don't have a bad habit of using them against other
>people.
>
>--Peter Metcalfe
>brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
>> And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
>> Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
>
>Because they don't have a bad habit of using them against other
>people.
>
>--Peter Metcalfe
The US is the ONLY state who has used nuclear weapons against another
state......and it made a habit of it by dropping two.
state......and it made a habit of it by dropping two.
Ray Dobson
|
Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
> In article <3F7E8B3F...@xtra.co.nz>
> > Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
> > > Which is irrelevant to the definition. Using your logic,
> > > one would declare bullets to be weapons of mass destruction
> > > because a large number of people died from bullet wounds in
> > > all modern wars.
>
> > I suggest you consult with the FBI on what they consider WMD.
>
> The FBI is not an authority on the topic. Your quote is just
> some legal advocacy that would, if taken seriously, would force
> many nations to fight with one hand tied behind their back in
> conflicts with an inferior foe.
>
> > Standard definition doesn't exist anymore.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> > As for Hamburg and Dresden, just because the term hadn't been
> > coined then, only an idiot would consider that those bombings
> > didn't result in mass destruction.
>
> Which I've never denied. What I did point out that merely
> because mass destruction took place does not mean that the
> weapons that caused it were weapons of mass destruction.
> That is why I made the point about bullets and artillery
> shells.
>
> > As for bullets, being wmd, I suggest you pick a better example,
> > as in WWI, in excess of 100,000 cartridges were fired per battle
> > death.
>
> Which matters not to the eventual mass destruction. Furthermore
> your implied methology would prevent weapons from being effective.
> My example stands and is an effective rebuttal.
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
>
> In article <3F7E8B3F...@xtra.co.nz>
> > Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
> > > Which is irrelevant to the definition. Using your logic,
> > > one would declare bullets to be weapons of mass destruction
> > > because a large number of people died from bullet wounds in
> > > all modern wars.
>
> > I suggest you consult with the FBI on what they consider WMD.
>
> The FBI is not an authority on the topic. Your quote is just
> some legal advocacy that would, if taken seriously, would force
> many nations to fight with one hand tied behind their back in
> conflicts with an inferior foe.
>
> > Standard definition doesn't exist anymore.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> > As for Hamburg and Dresden, just because the term hadn't been
> > coined then, only an idiot would consider that those bombings
> > didn't result in mass destruction.
>
> Which I've never denied. What I did point out that merely
> because mass destruction took place does not mean that the
> weapons that caused it were weapons of mass destruction.
> That is why I made the point about bullets and artillery
> shells.
>
> > As for bullets, being wmd, I suggest you pick a better example,
> > as in WWI, in excess of 100,000 cartridges were fired per battle
> > death.
>
> Which matters not to the eventual mass destruction. Furthermore
> your implied methology would prevent weapons from being effective.
> My example stands and is an effective rebuttal.
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
Well if the FBI aren't an authority on explosives, who is? the CIA?
We all know their track record on WMD.
We all know their track record on WMD.
By the way, define what Agent Orange was and who made it.
Then tell me it wasn't a chemical weapon!
Then tell me it wasn't a chemical weapon!
Sam
|
"Ray Dobson" <r.do...@netaccess.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3f7f3fc3.7118566@news.
- show quoted text -
Yes much better to have expended the lives of another million or more allied
soldiers, after all the Japanese were so peace loving, and I presume you
will say that the attack on Pearl Harbour, is a figment of American
imagination.?
soldiers, after all the Japanese were so peace loving, and I presume you
will say that the attack on Pearl Harbour, is a figment of American
imagination.?
|
"Sam" <sa...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3F7F46A9.794D91A1@xtra.
- show quoted text -
Started its life the way it is today, as a chemical defoliant, i.e. 245t
|
In article <3f7f3fc3...@news.
r.do...@netaccess.co.nz says...
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 18:45:08 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
> <metcalph@NOTquicksilver.
> >In article <islsnv000v9d6gk0fp11jbamkdh3g
> >brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
> >> And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> >> Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
> state......and it made a habit of it by dropping two.
r.do...@netaccess.co.nz says...
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 18:45:08 +1200, Peter Metcalfe
> <metcalph@NOTquicksilver.
> >In article <islsnv000v9d6gk0fp11jbamkdh3g
> >brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
> >> And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> >> Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
> >Because they don't have a bad habit of using them against other
> >people.
> >people.
> The US is the ONLY state who has used nuclear weapons against another
> state......and it made a habit of it by dropping two.
It hasn't used them since. Ergo there is no habit.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
In article <3F7F46A9...@xtra.co.nz>
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> > > I suggest you consult with the FBI on what they consider WMD.
> > The FBI is not an authority on the topic. Your quote is just
> > some legal advocacy that would, if taken seriously, would force
> > many nations to fight with one hand tied behind their back in
> > conflicts with an inferior foe.
> > The FBI is not an authority on the topic. Your quote is just
> > some legal advocacy that would, if taken seriously, would force
> > many nations to fight with one hand tied behind their back in
> > conflicts with an inferior foe.
> Well if the FBI aren't an authority on explosives, who is?
Being an authority on explosives has nothing to do with the
definition of a WMD.
definition of a WMD.
> By the way, define what Agent Orange was and who made it.
> Then tell me it wasn't a chemical weapon!
> Then tell me it wasn't a chemical weapon!
So you wasted your time with a red herring trying to prove
that the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden was due to WMDs
(which only shows you've been reading Irving - other people
who have mentioned Tokyo) before finally getting a clue
about Agent Orange?
that the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden was due to WMDs
(which only shows you've been reading Irving - other people
who have mentioned Tokyo) before finally getting a clue
about Agent Orange?
But Agent Orange is not a chemical weapon for the same
reason that tomatoes aren't fruits.
reason that tomatoes aren't fruits.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
Denver wrote:
>
> > > And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> > > Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
> >
> > Because they tolerate rugby and cricket.
>
> Quite right.
> "John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3F7E9E7E.2D87DFBD@ihug.
> > Brian Harmer wrote:
> > > On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:58:59 +1200, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
>
> > Yes. The age of sovereignty is giving way to that of common international
> > good.
> > Depending on the situation, that "good" will be the US and Brits taking
> > down Saddam or the EU imposing Kyoto and the ICC.
>
> Contrary to what you seem to believe, gunboat diplomacy is not a new
> invention.
> news:3F7E9E7E.2D87DFBD@ihug.
> > Brian Harmer wrote:
> > > On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:58:59 +1200, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
>
> > Yes. The age of sovereignty is giving way to that of common international
> > good.
> > Depending on the situation, that "good" will be the US and Brits taking
> > down Saddam or the EU imposing Kyoto and the ICC.
>
> Contrary to what you seem to believe, gunboat diplomacy is not a new
> invention.
Nevertheless, the fallout from the Rwanda genocide makes it very likely that
the UN will act to secure a country that looks likely to go the same way. The
other example is Kosovo. Thats more or less new, ie intervention or invasion on
behalf of the people.
the UN will act to secure a country that looks likely to go the same way. The
other example is Kosovo. Thats more or less new, ie intervention or invasion on
behalf of the people.
>
>
> Nor is it a sign of progress, unless you're facing the wrong way.
>
> > > I find it hard to categores what they did as "pretty good". Good ends
> > > by bad means are always a worry.
> >
> > Good or bad of the above are simply your repost to my comments. I suggest
> > that the important issue is whether the Iraqis and the international
> > community are better off with Saddam's going.
>
> The Iraqis may well be, while the international community may not be.
>
> (Even the status of the Iraqi's is too soon to judge, but it is relatively
> straightforward to predict how the precedents being set will be abused in
> future. Already the hawks are looking askance at Syria, Iran, Jordan, North
> Korea.)
>
> But we know the pattern well enough: when things turn out badly, the hawks
> who have been responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of
> thousands, will say "But we meant well!" - the catchcry of the hegemonists
> throughout political history.
>
> Nor is it a sign of progress, unless you're facing the wrong way.
>
> > > I find it hard to categores what they did as "pretty good". Good ends
> > > by bad means are always a worry.
> >
> > Good or bad of the above are simply your repost to my comments. I suggest
> > that the important issue is whether the Iraqis and the international
> > community are better off with Saddam's going.
>
> The Iraqis may well be, while the international community may not be.
>
> (Even the status of the Iraqi's is too soon to judge, but it is relatively
> straightforward to predict how the precedents being set will be abused in
> future. Already the hawks are looking askance at Syria, Iran, Jordan, North
> Korea.)
>
> But we know the pattern well enough: when things turn out badly, the hawks
> who have been responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of
> thousands, will say "But we meant well!" - the catchcry of the hegemonists
> throughout political history.
Perhaps. Nevertheless the manifestation of the global village means that
sovereignty is destined to become less important.
sovereignty is destined to become less important.
JC
>
>
> > > And given that Saddam probably never had a nuclear weapon, how did we
> > > let North Korea get as far as it has?
> >
> > Because there are friends in South Korea to consider, plus Russia and
> > China to confront if we move too fast on NK. Look at the atlas, the US
> and
> > allies are poorly positioned to do much if China isnt on side. In
> > addition, Korea doesn't pose a martyrdom culture like Islam and is
> > physically isolated from potential allies.
>
> But is developing missile technology to overcome that (from its
> perspective) deficiency.
>
> Allied to its nuclear potential and a "we have nothing to lose" mentality,
> North Korea would seem to pose a far more immediate and severe threat than
> Saddam ever did.
>
> > > And given that Saddam probably never had a nuclear weapon, how did we
> > > let North Korea get as far as it has?
> >
> > Because there are friends in South Korea to consider, plus Russia and
> > China to confront if we move too fast on NK. Look at the atlas, the US
> and
> > allies are poorly positioned to do much if China isnt on side. In
> > addition, Korea doesn't pose a martyrdom culture like Islam and is
> > physically isolated from potential allies.
>
> But is developing missile technology to overcome that (from its
> perspective) deficiency.
>
> Allied to its nuclear potential and a "we have nothing to lose" mentality,
> North Korea would seem to pose a far more immediate and severe threat than
> Saddam ever did.
>
> > > And why hasn't anybody complained about the WMDs possessed by France,
> > > Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, Russia, and the US?
> >
>
> Quite right.
|
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:17:09 +1300, "oldcecil" <oldc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
- show quoted text -
Hey, steady the Buffs, old man. As a matter of fact I agree with you
100%. The dropping of those 2 atomic bombs on Japan was completely
justified but I was simply pointing out to that smartarse, Peter
Metcalfe, that the US has used nuclear weapons in anger and is the
only nation to have done so.
Ray Dobson
100%. The dropping of those 2 atomic bombs on Japan was completely
justified but I was simply pointing out to that smartarse, Peter
Metcalfe, that the US has used nuclear weapons in anger and is the
only nation to have done so.
Ray Dobson
|
On 3 Oct 2003 16:23:24 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
>Enraged, this writer dashed off the following e-mail and sent it just
>before the 10:00 a.m. news.
Breen) wrote:
>Enraged, this writer dashed off the following e-mail and sent it just
>before the 10:00 a.m. news.
Why should we care?
>Dear Mike,
Kindly confine your private correspondence to the addressee.
> [text without content]
Breen, can't you find a productive vehicle for your energies? Go out
and get a life. You are a bore and a boor.
and get a life. You are a bore and a boor.
willy
|
"Ray Dobson" <r.do...@netaccess.co.nz> wrote in message
- show quoted text -
|
"Ray Dobson" <r.do...@netaccess.co.nz> wrote in message
- show quoted text -
|
On 3 Oct 2003 16:23:24 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey Breen) wrote:
>Those blithering, probably drunken, possibly insane twits Berend de
>Boer and Redbaiter are on record stating that the radio station
>Newstalk ZB is full of (wait for it)...."leftists". Of course, the
>converse is true.
>Boer and Redbaiter are on record stating that the radio station
>Newstalk ZB is full of (wait for it)...."leftists". Of course, the
>converse is true.
Old bean if the station is so bad why do you and the 'insane twits' Berend de Boer and Redbaiter
bother listening to it? There must be many other stations the three of you could listen to. You're
obsessed, I suggest that you find a station that you like and listen to it exclusively. Hopefully
then you will have nothing to whinge about. That would be a win-win situation for you. You won't get
so angry and upset -- stress is not good for one old bean.
bother listening to it? There must be many other stations the three of you could listen to. You're
obsessed, I suggest that you find a station that you like and listen to it exclusively. Hopefully
then you will have nothing to whinge about. That would be a win-win situation for you. You won't get
so angry and upset -- stress is not good for one old bean.
|
Sam wrote:
>
>
> Well if the FBI aren't an authority on explosives, who is? the CIA?
> We all know their track record on WMD.
>
> By the way, define what Agent Orange was and who made it.
> Then tell me it wasn't a chemical weapon!
>
> Well if the FBI aren't an authority on explosives, who is? the CIA?
> We all know their track record on WMD.
>
> By the way, define what Agent Orange was and who made it.
> Then tell me it wasn't a chemical weapon!
An unpurified form of 245T used for killing woody weeds, used to kill off
foliage to expose movements of Viet Cong troops.
foliage to expose movements of Viet Cong troops.
JC
|
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3F7F4AFE.5F549149@ihug.> Denver wrote:
...
> > Contrary to what you seem to believe, gunboat diplomacy is not a new
> > invention.
>
> Nevertheless, the fallout from the Rwanda genocide makes it very likely
that
> the UN will act to secure a country that looks likely to go the same way.
The
> other example is Kosovo. Thats more or less new, ie intervention or
invasion on
> behalf of the people.
Not really new. Authoritarians and those with delusions of manifest destiny
have always invented peurile reasons to sanctify their organised violence.
While there are few occasions in which either good or evil is unalloyed in
any human endeavour, it is rather bizarre to pretend that removing power
from one group of people and vesting it in another group of people is an
inherently good thing.
any human endeavour, it is rather bizarre to pretend that removing power
from one group of people and vesting it in another group of people is an
inherently good thing.
While the second group actually are more humane, reliable, rational, etc,
then that particular transfer will be a good thing, but that doesn't confer
any innate goodness upon the process itself.
then that particular transfer will be a good thing, but that doesn't confer
any innate goodness upon the process itself.
....
> > But we know the pattern well enough: when things turn out badly, the
hawks
> > who have been responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds
of
> > thousands, will say "But we meant well!" - the catchcry of the
hegemonists
> > throughout political history.
>
> Perhaps. Nevertheless the manifestation of the global village means that
> sovereignty is destined to become less important.
Perhaps. With the increasing cost of power projection and the corresponding
advantage shifting, it seems likely to me that smaller political entities
will be increasingly favoured, rather than larger.
For all that you can point to the EU as one example of a growing
confederation, there are myriad counter examples of the splintering of
empires and the multiplication of jurisdictions.
confederation, there are myriad counter examples of the splintering of
empires and the multiplication of jurisdictions.
|
In an ill-advised attempt to find common ground with that fanatical chump Old Cecil, one r.do...@netaccess.co.nz (Ray Dobson) wrote in message news:<3f7f4b47...@news.
>
> Hey, steady the Buffs, old man. As a matter of fact I agree with you 100%. The dropping
> of those 2 atomic bombs on Japan was completely justified...
>
> Hey, steady the Buffs, old man. As a matter of fact I agree with you 100%. The dropping
No it wasn't. The Japanese government was about to surrender, and the
bombs were dropped not to end the war, but to frighten off the Soviet
Union, which the USA feared had designs on annexing Japan for itself.
You can read Gar Alperowitz's exhaustive book on this if you want to
find out more. Alternatively, of course, you can continue, like poor
old Cecil, to believe bland official lies, such as the atom bombings
being "completely justified".
bombs were dropped not to end the war, but to frighten off the Soviet
Union, which the USA feared had designs on annexing Japan for itself.
You can read Gar Alperowitz's exhaustive book on this if you want to
find out more. Alternatively, of course, you can continue, like poor
old Cecil, to believe bland official lies, such as the atom bombings
being "completely justified".
>
> but I was simply pointing out to that smartarse, Peter
> Metcalfe, that the US has used nuclear weapons in anger and is the
> only nation to have done so.
> but I was simply pointing out to that smartarse, Peter
> Metcalfe, that the US has used nuclear weapons in anger and is the
> only nation to have done so.
At least you got THAT right. (Is Metcalfe also denying the Hiroshima
and Nagasaki bombings ever occurred?)
and Nagasaki bombings ever occurred?)
|
In an ill-advised attempt to find common ground with that fanatical chump Old Cecil, one r.do...@netaccess.co.nz (Ray Dobson) wrote in message news:<3f7f4b47...@news.
>
>
> Hey, steady the Buffs, old man. As a matter of fact I agree with you 100%. The dropping
> of those 2 atomic bombs on Japan was completely justified...
No it wasn't. The Japanese government was about to surrender, and the
bombs were dropped not to end the war, but to frighten off the Soviet
Union, which the USA feared had designs on annexing Japan for itself.
You can read Gar Alperowitz's exhaustive book on this if you want to
find out more. Alternatively, of course, you can continue, like poor
old Cecil, to believe bland official lies, such as the atom bombings
being "completely justified".
bombs were dropped not to end the war, but to frighten off the Soviet
Union, which the USA feared had designs on annexing Japan for itself.
You can read Gar Alperowitz's exhaustive book on this if you want to
find out more. Alternatively, of course, you can continue, like poor
old Cecil, to believe bland official lies, such as the atom bombings
being "completely justified".
>
> but I was simply pointing out to that smartarse, Peter
> Metcalfe, that the US has used nuclear weapons in anger and is the
> only nation to have done so.
At least you got THAT right. (Is Metcalfe also denying the Hiroshima
and Nagasaki bombings ever occurred?)
|
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb3a0456.0310042017.
> In an ill-advised attempt to find common ground with that fanatical chump
Old Cecil, one r.do...@netaccess.co.nz (Ray Dobson) wrote in message
news:<3f7f4b47...@news.
> >
> > Hey, steady the Buffs, old man. As a matter of fact I agree with you
100%. The dropping
> > of those 2 atomic bombs on Japan was completely justified...
>
> No it wasn't. The Japanese government was about to surrender, and the
> bombs were dropped not to end the war, but to frighten off the Soviet
> Union, which the USA feared had designs on annexing Japan for itself.
> You can read Gar Alperowitz's exhaustive book on this if you want to
> find out more. Alternatively, of course, you can continue, like poor
> old Cecil, to believe bland official lies, such as the atom bombings
> being "completely justified".
>
No sorry but there was not an icicles show in hell of the Japanese
Government surrendering prior to the atomic bombs being dropped.
They might have been prepared to sue for peace, on the condition that the
Allies stopped short of the invasion of their shores.
But as for unconditional surrender, it would have been totally unacceptable
to them.
I'm a little curious, you hate America and all Americans yet seem to have
enormous admiration for the Japanese, may one ask why.?
|
In article <fb3a0456.03100...@
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
morriss...@yahoo.com says...
> > Hey, steady the Buffs, old man. As a matter of fact I
> > agree with you 100%. The dropping of those 2 atomic
> > bombs on Japan was completely justified...
> No it wasn't. The Japanese government was about to surrender
> > agree with you 100%. The dropping of those 2 atomic
> > bombs on Japan was completely justified...
> No it wasn't. The Japanese government was about to surrender
No, they weren't. The supreme council was stalemated 3:3 whether
to accept the potsdam declaration _after_ Nagasaki.
to accept the potsdam declaration _after_ Nagasaki.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
"Peter Metcalfe" <metcalph@NOTquicksilver.
news:MPG.
- show quoted text -
Yes but you cant expect Mr Breen to understand points like that, history is
just an piece of evil Western propaganda, he knows these things.
just an piece of evil Western propaganda, he knows these things.
|
In article <blnh1k$fin$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>
<oldc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<oldc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes much better to have expended the lives of another million or more allied
> soldiers, after all the Japanese were so peace loving, and I presume you
> will say that the attack on Pearl Harbour, is a figment of American
> imagination.?
> Yes much better to have expended the lives of another million or more allied
> soldiers, after all the Japanese were so peace loving, and I presume you
> will say that the attack on Pearl Harbour, is a figment of American
> imagination.?
No. But one war crime does not cancel out another.
The use of force against large bodies of civilians, indiscriminantly
destroying relegious and medical buildings has been a recognised war
crime under the laws of armed conflict since at least 1907.
destroying relegious and medical buildings has been a recognised war
crime under the laws of armed conflict since at least 1907.
In no way can the use of atomic weapons (or fire storms) against large
population centres be considered an appropriate level of force.
population centres be considered an appropriate level of force.
Of course the victor gets to write the history books and run the war
crimes tribunals.
crimes tribunals.
John
|
"John Holley" <john_...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:051020031848503436%john_
- show quoted text -
Does this mean you would have preferred the enormous loss of Allied lives
instead, don't quite understand your reasoning.
There is no nice way to win a war, in general terms every one is the loser.
instead, don't quite understand your reasoning.
There is no nice way to win a war, in general terms every one is the loser.
|
In article <051020031848503436%john_
says...
> The use of force against large bodies of civilians, indiscriminantly
> destroying relegious and medical buildings has been a recognised war
> crime under the laws of armed conflict since at least 1907.
> In no way can the use of atomic weapons (or fire storms) against large
> population centres be considered an appropriate level of force.
says...
> The use of force against large bodies of civilians, indiscriminantly
> destroying relegious and medical buildings has been a recognised war
> crime under the laws of armed conflict since at least 1907.
Wrong. The 1907 convention prohibits the shelling of undefended
cities. If the city had an AA-gun, then under the convention,
it is not undefended and shelling it is legal.
cities. If the city had an AA-gun, then under the convention,
it is not undefended and shelling it is legal.
> In no way can the use of atomic weapons (or fire storms) against large
> population centres be considered an appropriate level of force.
It was considered appropriate by many people during the
second world war. Nowadays it isn't because technology
makes the tactics unnecessary.
second world war. Nowadays it isn't because technology
makes the tactics unnecessary.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
In article <3f7f4b47...@news.
r.do...@netaccess.co.nz (Ray Dobson) wrote:
- show quoted text -
And when they did do so, New Zealand celebrated in the streets in
relief. Indeed, even today, very few of the many still alive who
actually experienced the events of those years would have much
sympathy with the strand of latterday revisionism that attempts to
paint the Japanese of the times as victims and/or the Americans as
the aggressor.
This would be so not only for the New Zealanders who danced in the
streets at the time but also, I imagine, for the Brits, the
Australians, the Americans and others; and especially for those Asians
who had endured the ghastliness of Japan's Greater South-East Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere.
streets at the time but also, I imagine, for the Brits, the
Australians, the Americans and others; and especially for those Asians
who had endured the ghastliness of Japan's Greater South-East Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere.
--
Robin Klitscher
Wellington ("Harbour City") NZ
Robin Klitscher
Wellington ("Harbour City") NZ
|
On 4 Oct 2003 21:17:29 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
after the war shows. As a quick example, consider the huge battles and
massive Japanese casualties and suicides in Okinawa and the other
pacific islands. It is rather late, so I am not going to dig into my
rather extensive library for all teh details and references. If you
want to know more, remind me tomorrow.
Geoff
Breen) wrote:
>No it wasn't. The Japanese government was about to surrender, and the
>bombs were dropped not to end the war, but to frighten off the Soviet
>Union, which the USA feared had designs on annexing Japan for itself.
>You can read Gar Alperowitz's exhaustive book on this if you want to
>find out more. Alternatively, of course, you can continue, like poor
>old Cecil, to believe bland official lies, such as the atom bombings
>being "completely justified".
Sorry, but you are wrong as information at the time, and released>bombs were dropped not to end the war, but to frighten off the Soviet
>Union, which the USA feared had designs on annexing Japan for itself.
>You can read Gar Alperowitz's exhaustive book on this if you want to
>find out more. Alternatively, of course, you can continue, like poor
>old Cecil, to believe bland official lies, such as the atom bombings
>being "completely justified".
after the war shows. As a quick example, consider the huge battles and
massive Japanese casualties and suicides in Okinawa and the other
pacific islands. It is rather late, so I am not going to dig into my
rather extensive library for all teh details and references. If you
want to know more, remind me tomorrow.
Geoff
|
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb3a0456.0310042017.
chump Old Cecil, one r.do...@netaccess.co.nz (Ray Dobson) wrote in
message news:<3f7f4b47...@news.
: >
: > Hey, steady the Buffs, old man. As a matter of fact I agree with
you 100%. The dropping
: > of those 2 atomic bombs on Japan was completely justified...
:
: No it wasn't. The Japanese government was about to surrender, and
the
: bombs were dropped not to end the war, but to frighten off the
Soviet
: Union, which the USA feared had designs on annexing Japan for
itself.
: You can read Gar Alperowitz's exhaustive book on this if you want to
: find out more. Alternatively, of course, you can continue, like
poor
: old Cecil, to believe bland official lies, such as the atom
bombings
: being "completely justified".
According to the history the Japanese didn't accept the fact of the
first nuclear device.
And it took them some time --after-- the second nuclear device to
surrender..
It took the Japanese military 9 days from the first bomb ( and 6 from
the second) to sue for peace...
first nuclear device.
And it took them some time --after-- the second nuclear device to
surrender..
It took the Japanese military 9 days from the first bomb ( and 6 from
the second) to sue for peace...
: > but I was simply pointing out to that smartarse, Peter
: > Metcalfe, that the US has used nuclear weapons in anger and is the
: > only nation to have done so.
:
: At least you got THAT right. (Is Metcalfe also denying the
Hiroshima
: and Nagasaki bombings ever occurred?)
Japanese were not going to surrender but fight to the end...
No comments:
Post a Comment