The price of trade with Lybia

quote:

Originally posted by nap-ster:
The price of trade with Germany/Russia/Japan/Argentina etc etc

Indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
which saved millions of lives during the next 60 or so years.

Probably saved millions of lives during the following six months.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

It wasn't murder, it was a firefight and the Paras where the better shots.

Who isn’t a better shot than a turkey.

Turkeys tend not to shoot at Paratroopers.

They do shoot but never hit

Then they should not shoot in the first place.

The nuclear threat was so terrible it prevented wars between nuclear nations - it created a stalemate that still holds - just.

Without the nuclear threat one could have expected WW3 to have kicked off as a result of the Berlin blockade. It would have been across Europe flattening most countries.

Avole

You are also ignoring the fact that the atom bombing of Japan made them surrender. If you investigate the island hopping campaign in the Pacific, you will see what an incredibly determined enemy the Japanese where. They expected to fight to the death, and generally did. The entire population of the home islands was to have been mobilised in their defence, and the death toll would have been horrific, for both the Japanese and the Allies.

I don't think there is much doubt about this.

It is only be demonstrating the power of the bomb was there the long standing standoff.

You seem to have forgotten that the Japanese killed a lot civilians in Asia and had started bombing the US mainland - if they had obtained the bomb they would have used to the jet stream to bomb the north west of the US and probably Canada.

then so are yours.

Avole

WW2 / the Pacific War was total war. The US where not the first to bomb cities and civilian targets, they just had the biggest, "best" bomb. I personally have no doubt at all that the atom bombs markedly shortened the Pacific War, thereby saving hundreds of thousands, more likely millions of lives. Its somewhat disingenuous to say I'm unthinkingly repeating WW2 propaganda. The decision to switch from military targets to civilian would have been sanctioned by Government, so was not purely a military decsision ( which is why MacArthur was not allowed to nuke China in the Korean war. )

The US had a targetting commite which met at Los Alamos and

"noted of Hiroshima that it was "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target." Hiroshima was the headquarters of not only the 5th Division but the Japanese 2nd Army. The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."

As such, neither where purely civilian targets.

If you investigate the US island hopping campaign - Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan etc you will see that the Japanese where fanatical enemies, happily giving their lives in the service of the Emporer who they saw as a living god - literally.

I feel sure that the bombs saved lives oin both sides.

Regards

Mike

THe percentage increase in the number of people killed in WW2 due to the A bomb was trivial, several thousands compared to the 40 million civilians and 20 million solders.

The estimate for the number of civilians killed by the Japanese is between 3 to 10 million.

It is really great to have 20 20 hind sight and to be able to see the error of the ways of the Allies in the mid 40s.

Avole

I have researched the issue; I thought my posts made that clear. I was going to mention Dresden, but the butchers bill there was a lot lower than that of the A-bombs. If the Allies had lost the war, Harris would almost certainly have been tried for war crimes.

The only question in my mind ref the decision to atom bomb, is the fact that the Allied naval blockade was so very sucessful. It *might* have been possible to starve Japan into surrender, but then again, what would have been the death toll for that? The Japanese saw it as their sacred duty to defend the homeland, so I have some doubt as to wether the mere starvation of the citizenry would have been sufficient grounds for the Emporer or the Army Council to surrender. They just did not care about the citizens, whose lives where owed to the Emporer, they where not important.

The instant devastation of a city, at will, is another matter. Hirohito himself could not have escaped should the US have decided to bomb Tokyo - an unthinkable outcome for the Japanese, given he was viewed as a living god.

to cut a long story short most if not all governments are terrorist,commit atrocity's and then claim the moral high ground,america and britain latest atrocity's have been in the name of democracy,crap.

Britains latest atrocity being...?

LOL

I'll take that as a realisation that, despite your very heartfelt rhetoric, you cannot actually answer.

yeh you got it mike,have a nice day.

Ah, trolling.

Of course.

'bye.

quote:

Originally posted by 151:
to cut a long story short most if not all governments are terrorist,commit atrocity's and then claim the moral high ground,america and britain latest atrocity's have been in the name of democracy,crap.

Yeah, we just can't do decent atrocities anymore...

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
THe percentage increase in the number of people killed in WW2 due to the A bomb was trivial, several thousands compared to the 40 million civilians and 20 million solders.

The estimate for the number of civilians killed by the Japanese is between 3 to 10 million.

The same argument could be made with regards to number of innocent civilians murdered by Libya.

700 (Mike’s figures) compared to 10’s of thousands of Iraqi’s, thousands of Afghans, thousands of Lebanese, hundreds of Serbians, (killed by Nato), numerous Chechens and Nepalise.

Not killed by terrorists, but the armed forces of America, Russia, China, Britain and Israel.

A dead innocent civilian killed by a terrorist is no different to a dead innocent civilian killed by a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Or the Vikings

Fatcat

I'm struggling to see your point here.

Post-invasion (/liberation? ) most Iraqis where killed by fellow Muslims, likewise, most Aghanis. For example - AQs use of mentally disabled as suicide bombers.

The NATO intervention stopped the ethnic cleansing of Serbians and helped stop a vile civil war, hardly an outcome to decry. Chechens and Nepalse; I don't know enough about these theatres but the UK does not get much involved ( except to employ Gurkhas, of course. ) The Middle East conflict is also devoid of UK intervenation.

All of which, of course, is off the original topic.

Regards

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Fatcat

I'm struggling to see your point here.

Post-invasion (/liberation? ) most Iraqis where killed by fellow Muslims, likewise, most Aghanis. For example - AQs use of mentally disabled as suicide bombers.

The NATO intervention stopped the ethnic cleansing of Serbians and helped stop a vile civil war, hardly an outcome to decry. Chechens and Nepalse; I don't know enough about these theatres but the UK does not get much involved ( except to employ Gurkhas, of course. ) The Middle East conflict is also devoid of UK intervenation.

All of which, of course, is off the original topic.

Regards

Mike

Mike

The thread was started by Mike-B, who objects to Mr Brown dealing with the Libyans. His objections are due to the fact that the Libyans murdered PC Fletcher, supplied explosives that killed a 400 hundred and blew up PanAm 103 (allegedly). From your own figures, 700 dead innocent civilians.

The points is, Britain and its allies have killed many more than 700.

Coalition forces in Iraq have killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Stating that after a certain date coalition forces where not the major cause of civilian fatalities is irrelevant. They are still responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

The same applies for Afghanistan. Though as yet not on the same scale.

Are you really suggesting that the response to Al Qaeda being responsible for the deaths of downs syndrome women is to kill more innocent civilians.

Nato wouldn’t kill hundreds of Serbians if they were being ethnically cleansed by the Croations. Although you never know.
Nato conducted a Bombing Campagne on Sebia killing approximately 500 innocent civilians. Including 16 at Belgrade TV headquarters.

Libya may be “Public Enemy” but not “Public enemy Number One”

I did say I was outta here, but I think one last post to restate my case and maybe this will all die down and we can get back to saving other more worthy parts of the planet.

I have no objections to Libya as a country. My experience is its a nice place and its people are warm & friendly as are most people from North Africa, but I have to add they are scared s####less to say anything that might be anti-state.

My real objection was the arse licking cap doffing that Messrs B&B seemed to be exhibiting when they visited Mr Gaddafi in his tent since Libya has been deemed to be a good guy. They seem to have disguarded WPC Fletcher, Lockerby, Semtex & other arms supplies, also the many other issues both suspected and factual of the past, and gone full bore into bigging up this strutting Mussolini like despot who will, I predict, given another opportunity, turn his allegiance and his politics on the turn of a coin.

Only yesterday his performance at the UN was nothing short of an embarrassing rant of a mentally challenged individual who made a pretty good imitation of the dictators of the 1930/40’s, Idi Amin, Mugabe, Jong-Il, et al. Each country’s principle at these UN meetings gets to have his/her say and 15 minutes is considered to be the norm. Gaddafi took 100 minutes and I challenge anyone who has a sad enough life with the time to read the transcript and to get his message.

I fully realise we need to work with some unpalatable countries & individuals in this world, but full pelt headlong arse licking without including some balance for the benefits of this country is not good politics.