US Ready for War with Iran - Sabres Rattling!

lillallyloukins · Jan 24, 2011

PB_Smith said:

But I'm sure rationality and facts have no place in your world of conspiracy and paranoia.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm

i'm sick and tired of hearing that kind of rhetoric... you know there are LOADS of rational facts related to what you call conspiracy... so many infact, that if you were really rational, you would not consider them as conspiracies but as facts...

midgardsun · Jan 25, 2011

PB_Smith said:

Yup, thats right and it brought the war to an end, and in the process saved a lot more lives than it took.
Click to expand...

Thats all lies you are spreding- Japan wanted to surrender BEFORE the nuclear bombings
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nuclear_01.shtml

PB_Smith · Jan 25, 2011

lillallyloukins said:

Hmmmmm

i'm sick and tired of hearing that kind of rhetoric... you know there are LOADS of rational facts related to what you call conspiracy... so many infact, that if you were really rational, you would not consider them as conspiracies but as facts...
Click to expand...

The trick is being able to discern the facts from the bull crap.
There are facts to lend credence to some "conspiracy" theories for sure, but often not to the extent some would want you to believe.
Plus my comment was directed specifically at midgardsun who seems to jump on EVERY conspiracy theory that comes down the pike and proclaims them to be absolute truth and backs them up with links to some of the most outlandishly ridiculous web sites to be found on the internet.

I like to get both sides of a story before wholeheartedly subscribing to any theories about anything. It's called being critical and applying reason and rational to a topic. That is really something I would love to see displayed more frequently in these discussions.

ChronicTom · Jan 25, 2011

midgardsun said:

Thats all lies you are spreding- Japan wanted to surrender BEFORE the nuclear bombings
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nuclear_01.shtml
Click to expand...

LMAO

You fucking crack me up...

Do you ever READ the articles you post as proof?

skip · Jan 25, 2011

ChronicTom said:

LMAO

You fucking crack me up...

Do you ever READ the articles you post as proof?
Click to expand...

Did you read it Tom?

the United States Army Air Force published a survey of the effects of strategic bombing on Japan. The Air Force argued that conventional B-29 attacks had all but brought Japan to its knees, and concluded,
' ... it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 (well before the date of the invasion) Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.’

Not to be outdone, the United States Navy produced its own assessment, stating that its submarine campaign had also brought Japan to its knees, that the Home Islands were on the verge of starvation, and that this alone would have produced surrender, thereby obviating the need for an atomic bomb, or an invasion.

And then the State Department added its assessment. Joseph Grew - America’s last ambassador to Japan before the war started - claimed that Japanese diplomats had been trying to open surrender negotiations with the United States via the then still neutral Soviet Union. These were overtures that the Truman administration knew about, thanks to decrypts of Japanese diplomatic codes, but which they nevertheless chose to ignore. Grew added that if the United States had modified the demand for unconditional surrender, made on 26 July at Potsdam, if it had simply guaranteed the continuation of the imperial system in Japan, the Japanese would almost certainly have capitulated within days.
Click to expand...

Seems to me the US was eager to test out the result of the Manhattan Project on live human beings on a mass scale so they could "study the results".

I'm sure it was just a matter of time before surrender, and the US Military and BUSINESS INTERESTS involved in producing the nuclear weapons wanted to scare the rest of the world into submission with this new found power and to make money off the technology.

And so was born the COLD WAR out of WWII to keep the MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL complex humming, and those corporate profits piling up over the dead bodies of our "enemies"...

ChronicTom · Jan 25, 2011

Skip said:

Did you read it Tom?

Seems to me the US was eager to test out the result of the Manhattan Project on live human beings on a mass scale so they could "study the results".

I'm sure it was just a matter of time before surrender, and the US Military and BUSINESS INTERESTS involved in producing the nuclear weapons wanted to scare the rest of the world into submission with this new found power and to make money off the technology.

And so was born the COLD WAR out of WWII to keep the MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL complex humming, and those corporate profits piling up over the dead bodies of our "enemies"...
Click to expand...

Yes I did Skip...

Growing consensus

There is a growing consensus among modern historians that the views as to the utility of the bomb held in August 1945 were correct. We now know that if the bomb had not been used, the invasion of Japan would have gone ahead. The best indication we have of the casualties that might have occurred are the actual figures for the eight-week campaign on Okinawa, in which 12,500 Americans died, and 39,000 were wounded.

Fighting at the same intensity (it could not have been less) on Kyushu and Honshu, campaigns which would have lasted some 50 weeks, would have produced 80 to 100,000 American dead, and some 300 to 320,000 wounded. Are these casualties enough to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

If morality is based on numbers, and in this case it must be, then perhaps not. But what is usually overlooked in this numbers game, is the number of Japanese killed on Okinawa, which amounts to a staggering 250,000 military and civilian, about 20 Japanese killed for every dead American. If we conduct the same calculation for an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, we arrive at a figure of at least two million Japanese dead.

The losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, but not as terrible as the number of Japanese who would have died as the result of an invasion. The revisionist historians of the 1960s - and their disciples - are quite wrong to depict the decision to use the bombs as immoral. It would have been immoral if they had not been used.
Click to expand...

TheMadcapSyd · Jan 25, 2011

Uh, since we're on the subject of Atomic bombing, do we need to remind people Japan wasn't on the verge of surrender, that it took 2 atomic bombs, not one, two for them to surrender, and even after that there was almost a coup to keep Hirohito from broadcasting his speech urging surrender to the public. Seriously even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet invasion, half the Japanese cabinet wanted to keep fighting.

Reminder, had we invaded, it probably would've cost upwards of 300-400,000 allied lives, and probably millions of Japanese. We're still giving out the purple hearts we minted for Operation Olympic.

Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[11] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes—which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the U.S. "half a million" dead.[42]

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[43]

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[44] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 U.S. casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[45] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[46]

In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[47] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[48] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[48]

Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[49] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[50]
The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 U.S casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing. (This is conservative, because it excludes several thousand U.S. soldiers who died after the battle indirectly from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 square miles (1,200 km2). If the U.S. casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had only been 5 percent as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the United States would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[51] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.[51]
Click to expand...

Not to mention given the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, they probably would've at least invaded Hokkaido too, and demanded more at the peace signing, resulting in a North/South Japan.

Also on top of it all, the conventional incednary bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the Atomic bombs, even if it took some days. Same with the firestorms that engulfed Hamburg and Dresden, not quite as high, but fatalities were still between 1/3 to 1/2 of the atomic blasts.

tikoo · Jan 25, 2011

iran has the genie in the lamp . look-out!
unleashed ,
the u.s. will
self-destruct
in madness

Piney · Jan 26, 2011

all i can say is that it is good to see so many voting for "NO".... i doubt that reflects the views of the majority of the general public though... maybe we could have a thread of positive pics of Iranians and their families and their daily life.. or a youtube channel of positive pics or something? theres this film coming out on youtube... i think Ridley Scott is involved... "Life in a Day"... it would be awesome if we/someone managed to sort something like that with pos images of all the peoples who are a supposed threat to the US and the "free" world ARF!!!! (you gotta laugh at that... free world i mean)
Click to expand...

Well, its easy to imagine everyday Iranians living a positive everyday life, no photos are necessary. Its not the everyday people of Iran who are ignoring United Nations and international sanctions; Choking the nations economy in the singular persuit of nuclear weapons.

The everyday people of Iran were kicked to the side in the recent election fraud. We saw them abused in the street by security forces.

Positive images of the good people of Iran has nothing to do with The Iranian Junta's persuit of the bomb.

Log in or Sign up

US Ready for War with Iran - Sabres Rattling!

lillallyloukins ⓑⓐⓡⓑⓐⓡⓘⓐⓝ

midgardsun Senior Member

PB_Smith Huh? What? Who, me?

ChronicTom Banned

skip Founder Administrator

ChronicTom Banned

TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

tikoo Senior Member

Piney Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

US Ready for War with Iran - Sabres Rattling!

lillallyloukins ⓑⓐⓡⓑⓐⓡⓘⓐⓝ

midgardsun Senior Member

PB_Smith Huh? What? Who, me?

ChronicTom Banned

skip Founder Administrator

ChronicTom Banned

TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

tikoo Senior Member

Piney Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

Share This Page

Useful Searches