Iran - Bush - Your Views

[aamirsaab]

I
But that doesnt really explain my question, what is there to be worried about when USA defends itself? And why when its defending itself, their complaints about Iranian nuclear program should be ignored?

Defending yourself doesn't mean you invade your enemie's land.

...Also, while civilians are being massacred, how long do you think we should give time for negotiations? Day? Week? Month?

It depends on the quality of negotiations; weak negotiations will result in more deaths, whereas stronger, more effective negotiations won't.

Of course it isnt. But again, that doesnt answer the question, is it better for USA to do nothing to prevent genocide in former Yugoslavia or defend countries like Kuwait if they might profit from it?

If the US' military action is to gaurd civilians, then I have no problem.

....Would you have halted the allied advance against the Japanese for the duration of these negotiations? Which would have meant continued Japanese occupation policies, and commitment of more war crimes.

I would have stopped invading Japan, but I would have bolstered the defences surrounding the US.

Also striking against military targets would have meant the use of inaccurate heavy bombers, and Japan didnt exactly build its military targets kilometers away from their cities, give proper wind conditions, and another 100 000 civilians die in burning paper houses the Japanese were fond of.

Ok, fair enough.

Im going to make a claim that your solution would have actually meant more dead people and no quarantee of Japanese surrender.

No, my claim would have meant less deaths, provided the level of negotiations was high enough.

If you master the art of negotiation, you'll never have to go to war.

 

[wilberhum]

If you master the art of negotiation, you'll never have to go to war.

Hitler would have loved your concept. The fact that we are not communicating in German shows you are wrong.

 

[Cognescenti]

It depends on the quality of negotiations; weak negotiations will result in more deaths, whereas stronger, more effective negotiations won't.

Do tell us what "stronger negotiations" means if it doesn't mean the threat of economic sanction or the use of military force?

I would have stopped invading Japan, but I would have bolstered the defences surrounding the US..

Great plan. And the 10's of thousands of Allied POW's in Japanese hands and the untold millions of Chinese and Koreans and etc., etc suffering under Japanese control

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Every country has a right to defend themselves from foreign invaders! - Iran shall have nukes!!

 

[Keltoi]

Every country has a right to defend themselves from foreign invaders! - Iran shall have nukes!!

That might make sense if the Iranian leader wasn't calling for the destruction of Israel. Doesn't sound like an interest in "self-defense" to me.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

I keep reading all these posts, but how much do we think about God in all these conflicts. What nationality is God, because the same God created Americans, Iraqi, and Afghans?

It really makes no sense at all that God should create each and everyone of us for the purpose of fighting each other.

If we place a death threat on a nation’s citizens by invading that country, how can we be sure we are only killing the people that God wants us to kill?

Were does God come into all this conflict,

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

 

[wilberhum]

Were does God come into all this conflict,

No where, but people always think god is on there side.

 

[Suomipoika]

Defending yourself doesn't mean you invade your enemie's land.

Im having very hard time imagining how the USA should then prevent further attacks against them if they cant go after the people behind the attacks? Are you actually expecting that after 9/11 Americans just should have improved their homeland security and wait for another round?

It depends on the quality of negotiations; weak negotiations will result in more deaths, whereas stronger, more effective negotiations won't.

How do you actually measure effective negotiations? I ask because you seem to think that you can solve everything by simply talking with Hitlers.

I would have stopped invading Japan, but I would have bolstered the defences surrounding the US.

No, my claim would have meant less deaths, provided the level of negotiations was high enough.

If you master the art of negotiation, you'll never have to go to war.

Well, you would have already kept bombing Japan, starving them, allow Japanese troops to continue their actorities, Chinese would have kept fighting the Japanese, aswell as other allies.

Meanwhile the Japanese kept on conducting their Kamikaze attacks against your forces. If you withdraw from around Japan, even more resources would flow to Japan and they were already using everything they had to produce more weapons. And if the pressure against home islands would have lessened, I doubt they would have just sat by when their Chinese 'colonies' were under attack.

And in the end, there is absolutely no guarantee, no matter how well you master the art of negotiation, that the Japanese would have surrendered.

 

[Keltoi]

The Japanese would never have surrendered unless faced with total destruction. Negotiation with the Japanese would have been considered a sign of weakness, and would only have lead to prolonged confict. The United States wasn't considered a world superpower at the time. The Japanese underestimated the will of the American people, and the war machine that was created as a result of their aggression. As a Japanese general once reportedly said, " I feel as if we have awoken a sleeping giant". Having said that, the result of the war was still unknown. The invasion of Japan would have been devastating to both the Japanese and Americans. The atomic bomb was a mercy in that situation.

 

[Woodrow]

The desperation that the US was facing was beyond belief. At the time of the decision to drop the first Atomic Bomb, the US forces were in Europe and North Africa fighting the Nazis and also spread thin throughout the Pacific for the war with Japan. Germany was in control of all of North Africa from Morocco to Eritrea. Much of Europe had fallen. The only significant country that had not been defeated was the UK and Hitler was determined to totally destroy London.

It was a very grim picture.

Because of the vastness of the Pacific region Japan had occupied many of the Islands and war was seen as an endless battle of Island after Island. There was little chance of any ground occupation of Japan itself. It was expected that the war in the Pacific would continue for 20 or more years.

Truman did not even know about the existance of the Atomic bomb until after Roosevelts death. Only one had ever been built and tested. The results of that test were very inconclusive and not understood. There was a second Bomb that was already built and a third was in production. It was very unstable and only had a usable time frame of a few months after which it would not be capable of detonating. A third bomb of a different design was in the process of being built.

The only path seen to bring the war to a rapid end would be a total surrender of Japan. Truman approved of the use of "Little Boy" Japan was stunned but not defeated. They would not surrender. The war in the Pacific was escalating and Japan seemed to be more determined. Truman requested that construction of the third bomb be sped up. It was completed and used nearly 2 months after Hiroshima and "Fat Man" was dropped on Nagasaki. It was not even certain if the new design would even detonate. It did and it was enough to convince Hirohito that the US could level Japan and he surrendered.

Right or wrong, I can not criticize Truman's decision, based on the world situation then and the very limited knowledge of what Atomic power was.

None of the people born after 1950 seem to be aware as to how close they came to having German as their native language and Sushi being their national food.

 

[wilberhum]

Woodrow,
All good points. Some of the youngins like to judge the entire war based on 10 min of it. It is easy to sit back and make judgements based on 1% of the information and not have to live with the results of your decision.

 

[Dhulqarnaeen]

Iran can start to control the world's oil supply. U.S would be at the mercy of Iran with Gasoline and other product prices. U.S would be able to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons because of the oil threat. - Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, who the hell appointed the U.S to be the world spokesperson? Bullying every country that does not march to their drum beat.

I hope to God Iran sticks to their guns (pun intended) Resist another invasion at all costs. - They fail in Iraq, they fail in Afghanistan, now they attempt Iran. lol - It can't be anymore more ludicrious if it was in the funnies section.

If you want democracy, implement it in the US first. You can't even hold elections without them being rigged, so much for implementing it in foreign countries.

I'm sorry for all the innocent americans who will be killed if this goes ahead. Think IRA, but only a 100 times worse, because they don't fear dying, so suicide bombers deployed all over the US.

Lets hope they see sense!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T-XzeFuYk

Let them have nuke, I just have iman in my heart of hadith Rasulullah shalallahu alaihi wasallam that said the war in the end of the world just with horses and swords. Wheres the nuke gone? So just let them with their nuke problems, we just have to study ISlam more and more. So we can have iman and aqidah like the companions and that the right time to defeat our enemies insha Allah

 

[Muezzin]

This thread is not about Hiroshima.

 

[Woodrow]

Getting back to Iran and Bush.

I have no idea as to why Bush could have any concern about Iran. the only fear I can think of is he may be afraid he is loosing control over Israel and Isrel may try a first strike against Iran..

That would put the US in a very nasty spot world wide.

Ethicaly and for mid-eastern diplomacy it would be best for the US to be neutral about Iran.

 

[Keltoi]

Getting back to Iran and Bush.

I have no idea as to why Bush could have any concern about Iran. the only fear I can think of is he may be afraid he is loosing control over Israel and Isrel may try a first strike against Iran..

That would put the US in a very nasty spot world wide.

Ethicaly and for mid-eastern diplomacy it would be best for the US to be neutral about Iran.

It is a little hard to be "neutral" on Iran when they are, by most accounts, actively engaged in a proxy war inside Iraq. I agree that would be best diplomatically for the U.S., but playing neutral is a little hard when everyone knows the U.S. will support Israel in any action they deem necessary.

 

[Woodrow]

It is a little hard to be "neutral" on Iran when they are, by most accounts, actively engaged in a proxy war inside Iraq. I agree that would be best diplomatically for the U.S., but playing neutral is a little hard when everyone knows the U.S. will support Israel in any action they deem necessary.

I think the big fear and what would be a big embarrassment to the White House is if Israel does do something that the US can not justify to our Western Allies as being necessary.

Sentiment for Israel is not as strong among the American people as it was say 5 years ago.

 

[Keltoi]

I think the big fear and what would be a big embarrassment to the White House is if Israel does do something that the US can not justify to our Western Allies as being necessary.

Sentiment for Israel is not as strong among the American people as it was say 5 years ago.

Israel is under direct threat from any Iranian nuclear program. It will hard to convince Israel, or me for that matter, that Israel doesn't have justification for protecting themselves. As I heard an Israeli general say this weekend on the Laura Ingraham radio talk show, one lesson the world should have learned from Hitler is that you take threats seriously, and that you stop them while they are small, not when they are big.

 

[Woodrow]

Israel is under direct threat from any Iranian nuclear program. It will hard to convince Israel, or me for that matter, that Israel doesn't have justification for protecting themselves. As I heard an Israeli general say this weekend on the Laura Ingraham radio talk show, one lesson the world should have learned from Hitler is that you take threats seriously, and that you stop them while they are small, not when they are big.

That is very understandable.

Sadly we are rapidly arriving to the point where Iran sees Israel as a threat and Israel sees Iran as a threat.

The situation is not going to end until neither perceives the other as a threat.

 

[Keltoi]

That is very understandable.

Sadly we are rapidly arriving to the point where Iran sees Israel as a threat and Israel sees Iran as a threat.

The situation is not going to end until neither perceives the other as a threat.

How can that be accomplished with the current Iranian president? I don't see how. Unless he suddenly has a change of heart and acknowledges Israel's right to exist.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;

How can that be accomplished with the current Iranian president? I don't see how. Unless he suddenly has a change of heart and acknowledges Israel's right to exist

The Iranian president just uses words, but Israel has proved to be the more aggressive nation in the way it deals with others.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth.

Eric