Iran: Nukes, good; e-cigs, bad

[Shining Wit]

My mum used to tell me not to discuss politics and religion in polite company. I think she meant that things could turn ugly with the strength of feeling people have for those subjects.

I really should learn to take her advice more sometimes.

Your mom was so right Kate, but I would extend the advice to include all company. Everyone has their views which they believe are right and very few change as a result of discussion or debate, which tends to be a case of who has the biggest intellectual bludger or loudest voice 'wins'.
Please could we all just agree to differ and be satisfied in our knowledge that we are all right.
Happy Holidays to you all.
John.

[leaford]

Your new avatar is giving me double vision.

[Reign]

Yeah I love this country too, which is why it pisses me off that the government gets away with half the crap it pulls on its own citizens, let alone when said citizens DEFEND said crap out of some unjustifiable lapse in critical thinking they masquerade as pride.

Maybe you should do something about it in real life and stop e-bitching then. You have been doing the same thing in this thread that the US does all the time; knee jerk reactions. At this point, you are going in circles and I dont have the endurance or the equilibrium to run loops with you. So whatever garbage you spew from this point is going to be unheard.
Merry Christmas

[Dr. Russell Fell]

Maybe you should do something about it in real life and stop e-bitching then. You have been doing the same thing in this thread that the US does all the time; knee jerk reactions. At this point, you are going in circles and I dont have the endurance or the equilibrium to run loops with you. So whatever garbage you spew from this point is going to be unheard.
Merry Christmas

Whose to say I don't do anything about it? Do you know me? Have we met outside this board?

Ignorant people really love to assume. It's easier than actually thinking.

[Soot]

I’ve been following this discussion with some interest and there are just a few points I want to make:

Bob’s title for the thread is easily open to criticism as hypocritical – but the basis of that criticism is superficial and unfair – unfair because much of the criticism was based on Bob’s nationality and assumed Bob was responsible for decisions made by a US government of over 60 years ago.

It is no surprise to me at all that such a line of argument caused offence that has led to a debate that generated more heat than light. Yes, the US dropped 2 atomic weapons on Japan. Any other nation faced with what the US faced would almost certainly have done the same – though some countries may have hit Tokyo instead.

Those arguing the ‘drops’ were done simply to warn the Soviet Union know little of WW2 history. The US was very late in understanding the danger posed by the Soviet Union and ignored warnings from Churchill. The atomic bomb carnage warned the world – including the Soviet Union.

I still believe the A-bomb drops on Japan were appalling – appalling in the carnage caused and the ruthless planning that chose the cities and delivered the devices. It’s easy to sit 60+ years adrift and condemn. Personally, I try to understand why sensible people did terrible things.

For those living in a black and white world what the US did was wrong. But, to the Allied Nations fighting that war it was good news. Perhaps it’s easier for me to understand having had relatives that fought in that war – 1 survived being a Japanese POW, 1 grandfather killed during the blitz (no known resting place), 1 grand uncle sunk by a U-Boat and 1 grand uncle killed by the Japanese in the Far East. I only knew the survivor – he’d become a sick and violent man.

When it’s not your grand-father or grand-uncle but instead your father, your brother or your son, then you might think you’ve little right to judge – much less condemn.

For those thinking Iran is entitled to develop nuclear energy – nobody is objecting to that. The EU offered a deal that would deliver Iran exactly that – but required waste material remained in EU control for re-processing. It’s the re-processing that could generate weapons material. Iran rejected that offer.

Without doubt a global power game is going on here – but its premise is based on exploiting a religiously extreme government in Iran to generate wealth for Russia while creating a new political power in a highly volatile area. This could lead to a nuclear launch against Israel.

Once that launch becomes the stuff of political ‘discussion’ the Cuban missile crises will be small beer. Israel will not accept such a threat posed by a government that has declared an intention to wipe it off the map. Those happy with Iran’s nuclear programme have a lot of work to do to convince people that this programme is not part of wiping Israel off the map.

If you faced that risk personally – what would you expect of your government?

The debate took a tangent on the right to bear arms. I’ve a LOT to say on that but I think I’ve said enough.

Discussion is good – it helps understanding. I’ve lived in a society where ‘talking’ was thought bad manners. It took to weapons and more than 3,000 people died, many more were maimed. When talking happened everybody wanted to know why it couldn’t have happened earlier.

I’d still like an answer to that question.

[Dr. Russell Fell]

I’ve been following this discussion with some interest and there are just a few points I want to make:

Bob’s title for the thread is easily open to criticism as hypocritical – but the basis of that criticism is superficial and unfair – unfair because much of the criticism was based on Bob’s nationality and assumed Bob was responsible for decisions made by a US government of over 60 years ago.

It is no surprise to me at all that such a line of argument caused offence that has led to a debate that generated more heat than light. Yes, the US dropped 2 atomic weapons on Japan. Any other nation faced with what the US faced would almost certainly have done the same – though some countries may have hit Tokyo instead.

Those arguing the ‘drops’ were done simply to warn the Soviet Union know little of WW2 history. The US was very late in understanding the danger posed by the Soviet Union and ignored warnings from Churchill. The atomic bomb carnage warned the world – including the Soviet Union.

I still believe the A-bomb drops on Japan were appalling – appalling in the carnage caused and the ruthless planning that chose the cities and delivered the devices. It’s easy to sit 60+ years adrift and condemn. Personally, I try to understand why sensible people did terrible things.

For those living in a black and white world what the US did was wrong. But, to the Allied Nations fighting that war it was good news. Perhaps it’s easier for me to understand having had relatives that fought in that war – 1 survived being a Japanese POW, 1 grandfather killed during the blitz (no known resting place), 1 grand uncle sunk by a U-Boat and 1 grand uncle killed by the Japanese in the Far East. I only knew the survivor – he’d become a sick and violent man.

When it’s not your grand-father or grand-uncle but instead your father, your brother or your son, then you might think you’ve little right to judge – much less condemn.

For those thinking Iran is entitled to develop nuclear energy – nobody is objecting to that. The EU offered a deal that would deliver Iran exactly that – but required waste material remained in EU control for re-processing. It’s the re-processing that could generate weapons material. Iran rejected that offer.

Without doubt a global power game is going on here – but its premise is based on exploiting a religiously extreme government in Iran to generate wealth for Russia while creating a new political power in a highly volatile area. This could lead to a nuclear launch against Israel.

Once that launch becomes the stuff of political ‘discussion’ the Cuban missile crises will be small beer. Israel will not accept such a threat posed by a government that has declared an intention to wipe it off the map. Those happy with Iran’s nuclear programme have a lot of work to do to convince people that this programme is not part of wiping Israel off the map.

If you faced that risk personally – what would you expect of your government?

The debate took a tangent on the right to bear arms. I’ve a LOT to say on that but I think I’ve said enough.

Discussion is good – it helps understanding. I’ve lived in a society where ‘talking’ was thought bad manners. It took to weapons and more than 3,000 people died, many more were maimed. When talking happened everybody wanted to know why it couldn’t have happened earlier.

I’d still like an answer to that question.

Israel is not a defenseless country - it's one of the most powerful and well militarily equipped developed nations. If Iran even CONSIDERED the absurd idea of nuking the, it'd be end game for everyone.

Also, the comments on wiping Israel off the map was made by a man who doesn't hold all policy-deciding powers. He say that Israel needs to be blown to bits and pieces until he's blue in the face, but that doesn't mean he can make it happen.

I still think the bombing was partially done to warn not only the world, but specifically Soviet Union AND to ensure they were left out of the decision-making process of post-WW2 Japan. I posted a good amount of evidence to illustrate this.

To quote Albert Einstein, "The use of the atomic bombs was precipitated by a desire to end the war in the Pacific by any means before Russia's participation. I'm sure if President Roosevelt had still been there, none of that would have been possible."

And to quote Churchill, "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell."

Finally, to quote General Leslie Groves, chief of the Manhattan Project, "The real purpose of building the bomb was to subdue the Soviets."

Ironically, what with all celebration the US gives itself for dropping the bomb and "ending the war," the US still inadvertently started another war - the Cold War.

Also, I don't quite understand your apologetics when stating you can understand why the US bombed Japan in its situation when Japan was clearly defeated before a bomb was dropped. You further remarking that any other country would've dropped the bomb on Tokyo is also even more puzzling. Are you implying that the US is the only civilized developed country that would never dream of doing a single horrific act of violence? Furthermore, are you implying that even if that preposterous statement was true, that the US is somehow justified because of that? "Be glad we only killed only 10,000 people - any other country would've killed 100,000 people." I mean I get what you're saying here, but I hardly see that as a proper argument for justifying anything like the dropping of the bombs.

[trog100]

I’d still like an answer to that question.

i think u know the answer soot.. or at least u should do..

a few years back when UK media had to start telling lies in support of its troops.. as any media always has to do.. a good old phrase was dragged up.. it always is..

one of the first causalities of war is truth.. my reply to that would have been very simple.. one of the first casualties of truth would be war..

without the lies there can be no war.. and anybody that thinks iran would be stupid enough to nuke israel is simply a victim of the iran demonizing lies..

its also a gross insult to the Iranians soot.. pretty much as bad as bobs..

iran will be never be allowed to have nuclear capabilities.. no arab nation will.. the middle east is one playing that can never be level..

there are no rights and wrongs here just some simple facts..

i would say more but when i said some things should not be said i meant it.. its dangerous to say them..

trog

[deewal]

Oh wrap it up guy's.

[Kate]

Discretion is the better part of valour.

[Soot]

I wrote a reply but was logged off by the time I hit "Post".

No matter - I'll be brief.

Doc - your quotes are interesting. Can you give me a full reference - I need to know the dates and references. Eg; Churchill believing Japan defeated doesn't mean much. I think you know your quote does not describe Churchill objecting to the drop. It would be easier to respect your line of argument if you first made clear Churchill supported the bombing.

Trog - do you think telling lies is bad?