NationStates Jolt Archive

so angry, that they will write a letter to the Iranian Government, saying just how mad they are....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/03/iran.deadline.ap/index.html

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Western powers have set July 12 as a deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and agree to talks on its nuclear program or face the threat of U.N. Security Council sanctions, diplomats said Monday.

Beyond revealing the deadline, the diplomats also said Russia and China were closer than ever to supporting the West on U.N. Security Council action -- including sanctions -- if Tehran refuses a six-power package of incentives meant to wean it off nuclear enrichment.

The envoys -- some of them senior U.N. diplomats, and all familiar with details of the six nations' drive to persuade Iran to compromise on its nuclear activities -- spoke just two days before a key Iran-European Union meeting in Brussels meant to make clear to the Iranians that their time is running out.

Something tells me the Iranians will tell them to stuff it.

so angry, that they will write a letter to the Iranian Government, saying just how mad they are....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/03/iran.deadline.ap/index.html



Something tells me the Iranians will tell them to stuff it.
roflmao we should just nook the iranians instead. talking is for pussies.

so angry, that they will write a letter to the Iranian Government, saying just how mad they are....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/03/iran.deadline.ap/index.html



Something tells me the Iranians will tell them to stuff it.

I don't blame 'em. I'd tell them to stuff it too. What are they gonna do- "censure" me.

Ohh, I'm scared of the Big Bad UN. :rolleyes:

The United Nations.
France.
Cindy Sheehan?

What do they all have in common?

Answer: They're all supposedly irrelevant yet people keep bringing them up every chance they get. Especially Busheviks.

Yawn.

I don't blame 'em. I'd tell them to stuff it too. What are they gonna do- "censure" me.

Ohh, I'm scared of the Big Bad UN. :rolleyes:

NIAMAN: Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans!
Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.
NIAMAN: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
NIAMAN: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
NIAMAN: OK, Hans. I'll show you. Stand to your reft.
Hans Blix: [Moves to the left]
NIAMAN: A rittle more.
Hans Blix: [Moves to the left again]
NIAMAN: Good.
[Opens up trap, Hans falls in]
NIAMAN: Herro!

The Iranians should be scared. If they don't shape up right now the UN will - write another letter.

so angry, that they will write a letter to the Iranian Government, saying just how mad they are....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/03/iran.deadline.ap/index.html

Something tells me the Iranians will tell them to stuff it.
And they will react with bombast and outrage, and in the end do nothing, which leaves America right back where we started: just us and a handful of allies willing to take the bull by the horns. And of course, all the liberals will be self-righteously indignant because "we should have let the UN do it." Groan. :headbang:

So, when do the US Marines get sent in because this is a terrorist threat to the American Way?

I'm starting to really really dislike the UN, and be very afraid of my own government.

Something tells me the Iranians will tell them to stuff it.

Of course the Iranians will tell them to stuff it. The UN is just a useless little international country club run by USA, UK, Russia, China, France, Germany, etc. The UN itself can't do anything except whine and cry about how the widdle Iwanians have big scawy nooks. :D

It'll take Russia or China to tell them to quit, because as of late, nobody's going to listen to the USA and no-one else will do anythign about it.:headbang:

So, when do the US Marines get sent in because this is a terrorist threat to the American Way?

I'm starting to really really dislike the UN, and be very afraid of my own government.
Marines won't be sent in to Iran. The Iranian nuclear facilities will be taken out by smart bombs guided to targets by small special operations forces painting them with lasers.

I'm actually more afraid of fearful people than I am of my government.

NIAMAN: Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans!
Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.
NIAMAN: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
NIAMAN: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
NIAMAN: OK, Hans. I'll show you. Stand to your reft.
Hans Blix: [Moves to the left]
NIAMAN: A rittle more.
Hans Blix: [Moves to the left again]
NIAMAN: Good.
[Opens up trap, Hans falls in]
NIAMAN: Herro!

:D

so angry, that they will write a letter to the Iranian Government, saying just how mad they are....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/03/iran.deadline.ap/index.html



Something tells me the Iranians will tell them to stuff it.

Maybe if you actually read the article, you would see that they are threatening Sanctions. Those aren't just a letter, and they certainly don't provide anything resembling added stability to the Iranian government.

Maybe if you actually read the article, you would see that they are threatening Sanctions. Those aren't just a letter, and they certainly don't provide anything resembling added stability to the Iranian government.

If he actually read it, it wouldn't have been such a good Bushevik masturbation material for him like the whole thread is supposed to be.

Marines won't be sent in to Iran. The Iranian nuclear facilities will be taken out by smart bombs guided to targets by small special operations forces painting them with lasers.


But if you take out nuke facilities, wouldn't that cause a huge mess?

But if you take out nuke facilities, wouldn't that cause a huge mess?

As long as the mess involves only brown people and hippies, he won't care.

Maybe if you actually read the article, you would see that they are threatening Sanctions. Those aren't just a letter, and they certainly don't provide anything resembling added stability to the Iranian government.

Yeah, because the hurt of the people is going to sway the Iranian's Government...

And they will react with bombast and outrage, and in the end do nothing, which leaves America right back where we started: just us and a handful of allies willing to take the bull by the horns. And of course, all the liberals will be self-righteously indignant because "we should have let the UN do it." Groan. :headbang:
Oh yeah, and the invasion of Iraq has proved to be such a wonderful accomplishment. :p

I guess nothing short of a world war will suffice for the war mongers?

If he actually read it, it wouldn't have been such a good Bushevik masturbation material for him like the whole thread is supposed to be.

And have sanctions worked? Even though if this time sanctions are imposed, any sufferring will be blamed solely on the US, right?

Sanctions don't work.

NIAMAN: Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans!
Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.
NIAMAN: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
NIAMAN: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
NIAMAN: OK, Hans. I'll show you. Stand to your reft.
Hans Blix: [Moves to the left]
NIAMAN: A rittle more.
Hans Blix: [Moves to the left again]
NIAMAN: Good.
[Opens up trap, Hans falls in]
NIAMAN: Herro!

*Laughing Hysterically* I would SO do that!

And have sanctions worked? Even though if this time sanctions are imposed, any sufferring will be blamed solely on the US, right?

Sanctions don't work.

Nope. Never have, never will. Good job on your portrayal with me and the UN inspector. How did you get it so acurate?

so angry, that they will write a letter to the Iranian Government, saying just how mad they are....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/03/iran.deadline.ap/index.html



Something tells me the Iranians will tell them to stuff it.
I know exactly what President Ahmadinejad is thinking right now:

Oh noes1111 t3h UN is sending me a letter1111 Im going to get pwned!
:rolleyes:

I know exactly what President Ahmadinejad is thinking right now:

Oh noes1111 t3h UN is sending me a letter1111 Im going to get pwned!
:rolleyes:

Now that's just what I said. Everyone seems to agree on this.:p

Because unsubstianted allegations of developping a nuclear bomb is a reason for sanctions. It can't possibly be used for peaceful energy use as the Iranian are saying. :rolleyes:

Because unsubstianted allegations of developping a nuclear bomb is a reason for sanctions. It can't possibly be used for peaceful energy use as the Iranian are saying. :rolleyes:

It's IRAN we're talking about. You can't trust any of them. Especially some wacko who thinks it's ok to beat women and who denies the holocaust. Yeah, I'll trust them when Hell freezes over.

Now that's just what I said. Everyone seems to agree on this.:p
Nothing like reminding everyone though.

Nothing like reminding everyone though.

Hey, somebody has to point out the obvious.;)

It's IRAN we're talking about. You can't trust any of them. Especially some wacko who thinks it's ok to beat women and who denies the holocaust. Yeah, I'll trust them when Hell freezes over.

did he? did he really?

its iraq all over again. the neo-cons arent even smart enough to change the record after the last debacle

It's IRAN we're talking about. You can't trust any of them. Especially some wacko who thinks it's ok to beat women and who denies the holocaust. Yeah, I'll trust them when Hell freezes over.
And you expect to take Bush's word, of all people, above Iran in this.

One has been shown to be fabricating evidence and pushing an illegal war on dubious reasons. And you expect to believe him this time? Get real.

And you expect to take Bush's word, of all people, above Iran in this.

One has been shown to be fabricating evidence and pushing an illegal war on dubious reasons. And you expect to believe him this time? Get real.

Leave Bush out of this, I don't jump 'cause he says to. I jump when I feel like jumping. Europe's the one who's been making a big deal out of this. It's one of those few times where they are actually right.

O common, Bush isn't fabricating this threat. China and Russia are concerned too.

And if Iran really wants the nuclear power for power, rather than bombs, they can accept offers by Russia to have the power created in Russia for them.

And you expect to take Bush's word, of all people, above Iran in this.

One has been shown to be fabricating evidence and pushing an illegal war on dubious reasons. And you expect to believe him this time? Get real.

I guess you're ignoring the fact that it's the Europeans who are bringing it up as well.

Or are you now going to say that France is the bootlick of Bush?

O common, Bush isn't fabricating this threat. China and Russia are concerned too.

And if Iran really wants the nuclear power for power, rather than bombs, they can accept offers by Russia to have the power created in Russia for them.

Yeah, 'cause we TRUST Russia so much more with Nukes. :headbang:

Actually yes, I do trust Russia more with nukes. They ahve them, and have shown responsibility.

And anyway, creating the power in Russia will not cause any threat, its not like it will increase Russia's nuclear capability too much. I mean they can nuke earth what, 50 times over? So yes, I do trust Russia. I don't like Russia all that much, but in this, they may be the solution.

O common, Bush isn't fabricating this threat. China and Russia are concerned too.

And if Iran really wants the nuclear power for power, rather than bombs, they can accept offers by Russia to have the power created in Russia for them.
A bad deal is a bad deal. Russia's deal was deemed bad by Iran. I would too. Whould you agree to cede all your energy consuption to a foreign power? Hell, the US has screamed when ports were sold to a Dubai company. I don't see how the Russian deal could have possibly been good for Iran.

Unless I see credible evidence that Iran is indeed making a bomb, I find them as innocent as any other country.

A bad deal is a bad deal. Russia's deal was deemed bad by Iran. I would too. Whould you agree to cede all your energy consuption to a foreign power? Hell, the US has screamed when ports were sold to a Dubai company. I don't see how the Russian deal could have possibly been good for Iran.

Unless I see credible evidence that Iran is indeed making a bomb, I find them as innocent as any other country.

Yes, it's not credible that the Iranians say they are enriching uranium, nor is it credible that the IAEA, not the US, says that they are enriching it.

I am convinced that you won't believe it until the Iranians blow up Tel Aviv - and even then, you'll say you won't believe it was the Iranians.

Iran is safe telling everyone to "stuff it" for quite some time.

Between their possible effect on oil prices and their protection from on-high by Russia and China, Iran has little to fear from anyone.

did he? did he really?

its iraq all over again. the neo-cons arent even smart enough to change the record after the last debacle

Yeah, he did. And it wasn't bush who said the Iranian leader said it, it was every press org on Earth.

did he? did he really?

its iraq all over again. the neo-cons arent even smart enough to change the record after the last debacle


Which neoconservatives are still in power in the government?

Yeah, he did. And it wasn't bush who said the Iranian leader said it, it was every press org on Earth.


Shhh.... don't you know? There are those who believe that EVERYTHING, including their athletes' foot infection, is Bush's fault...

Shhh.... don't you know? There are those who believe that EVERYTHING, including their athletes' foot infection, is Bush's fault...
What? It makes him less of a man to wear footsies at the public pool? What an asshole... Cover your infected feet, W!

Which neoconservatives are still in power in the government?

If you really want to know the truth- We don't have ANY conservatives in D.C.

Bush pretends to be Conservative- but the Republican party is a one-way ticket to globalism. So are Democrats. We the People don't have much say in our government anymore. Just D.C. insiders. Shh... don't let my fellow Conservatives know that- It'd break their hearts.

What? It makes him less of a man to wear footsies at the public pool? What an asshole... Cover your infected feet, W!
Yeah, I saw that pic of that Army guy who lost his feet to athlete's foot infection - and he was still happy to be running with Bush.

Yeah, I saw that pic of that Army guy who lost his feet to athlete's foot infection - and he was still happy to be running with Bush.

Hey, to each his own. If that's his cup of tea, I say let him go for it.

did he? did he really?

its iraq all over again. the neo-cons arent even smart enough to change the record after the last debacle

Why yes, yes he did.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/14/world/main1124255.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10460807
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4615172.stm

Yeah, I saw that pic of that Army guy who lost his feet to athlete's foot infection - and he was still happy to be running with Bush.
Just shows what kind of a man Bush is. Making a man run with no feet. He's shameless...

Why yes, yes he did.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/14/world/main1124255.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10460807
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4615172.stm

Yeah, He makes me sick.

No one nation has ever won a 2 front war in history.,and I find it hard to believe Iran has ever 'Enriched" anything.Uranium or standard of living!

No one nation has ever won a 2 front war in history.,and I find it hard to believe Iran has ever 'Enriched" anything.Uranium or standard of living!
LOL

No one nation has ever won a 2 front war in history.,and I find it hard to believe Iran has ever 'Enriched" anything.Uranium or standard of living!

I bet you could win a 10 front war with enough thermonuclear weapons, missiles, and stealth bombers.

In fact, I bet you could have a front for each US Trident nuclear submarine and "win".

Of course, real estate values would plummet in the target country for 20,000 years...

But if you take out nuke facilities, wouldn't that cause a huge mess?

Nope. Destroying a nuclear reactor--or rather, incapacitating in so that it is inoperational--will not detonate a nuclear explosion. Same concept as shooting a nuke down in the sky, it won't result in a premature nuclear blast.

I bet you could win a 10 front war with enough thermonuclear weapons, missiles, and stealth bombers.

In fact, I bet you could have a front for each US Trident nuclear submarine and "win".

Of course, real estate values would plummet in the target country for 20,000 years...
Well, actually probably the planet. I have a feeling once we start to nuke, everyone starts to nuke.

Nope. Destroying a nuclear reactor--or rather, incapacitating in so that it is inoperational--will not detonate a nuclear explosion. Same concept as shooting a nuke down in the sky, it won't result in a premature nuclear blast.

If it is fueled and operating (and this goes for any enrichment facility), and is fueled with plutonium, breaching the containment and scattering the contents can render the area uninhabitable.

just go in and kill the whole lot of em:sniper: :mp5:

Well, actually probably the planet. I have a feeling once we start to nuke, everyone starts to nuke.

That's what's so upsetting about an Iranian nuclear power. All nations possessing nuclear warheads have shown considerable restraint and rationality--with great power comes great responsibilty, etc. But Iran has not shown itself to be so...levelheaded (okay, Ahmadinejad has not), and who's to say that a nation right smack in the middle of terrorist HQ would be able to prevent terrorists from acquiring such a weapon, if they don't outright use it themselves or give it to them? I have a sneaking suspicion that mutually assured destruction means nothing to Ahmadinejad, so long as he takes out America (EDIT: Israel is what he actually wants to destroy, to my understanding) in the process.

No one nation has ever won a 2 front war in history.,and I find it hard to believe Iran has ever 'Enriched" anything.Uranium or standard of living!

What do you call "The European Theater" and "The Pacific Theater" if not a two-front war?

Look, the simple fact is that even the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons is a serious threat to the stability of the region. Let's forget for a minute that we have better than 150,000 troops stationed on nations bordering Iran, and consider what possible response Sunni nations, like Saudi Arabia, and Jewish nations, like Israel, will have if it becomes even slightly likely that a Shia nation, like Iran, gets nuclear backup of its threats. Put simply, you are going to have a mad scramble throughout the region to develop nuclear weapons, a threat which leaves everyone in the region less secure, makes our oil supplies (and by extension, our national security) less secure, and essentially makes a nuclear exchange almost inevitable. That means a crapload of dead Israelis, dead Shia, dead Sunnis, and an anarchical state where religious fanatics can thrive and seize nuclear weapons to boot. So to put it simply, even the possibility of a nuclear Iran really, really sucks.

The problem, of course, is that bombing Iran just makes it more likely that a nuclear program develops, not less. Since the conservatives seem all gung-ho for more war, let me pose a hypothetical to you: when you saw the World Trade Center burning and collapsing, were you filled with the desire to disarm our military and become quiescant to the demands of Al Queda? No? Then why exactly do you think that Iran will, even supposing we can find their nuclear processing facilities (we have little or no inside intel in the Iranian regime) and take them out? The simple fact is that Iran is building nukes because the U.S. is now bordering Iran on two sides and threatening military action. Further convincing them that the U.S. means to remove the government by force only encourages, rather than discourages, them to continue with their nuclear program, because nukes are the only way to level the playing field.

If it is fueled and operating (and this goes for any enrichment facility), and is fueled with plutonium, breaching the containment and scattering the contents can render the area uninhabitable.

Which is probably not the case yet. Yet.

Which is probably not the case yet. Yet.
Iran admits and the IAEA says that Iran is currently enriching nuclear material.

Hit that, and there's radioactive material everywhere.

Iran admits and the IAEA says that Iran is currently enriching nuclear material.

Hit that, and there's radioactive material everywhere.

Well, Iran is not exactly what I would consider resort property anyway. Although a field of plate glass would make an interesting tourist attraction--provided that viewers are equipped with appropriate protective gear, of course. :D

just go in and kill the whole lot of em:sniper: :mp5:

With smileys?

No, I say we let the Europeans fight this one. Sure, we'll do sanctions with everyone else.

But I think an important lesson would be learned by letting Iran acquire a few nuclear weapons for their Shahab missiles that interestingly will be able to reach Israel and Europe, but not the US.

It's also interesting that the US and Israel have invested in missile defense, while the Europeans refuse to.

When the Iranians finally have a bomb, they'll be able to tell most of the EU nations to kneel or face losing a few cities (the UK and France at least have a means of retaliation).

No, I say we let the Europeans fight this one. Sure, we'll do sanctions with everyone else.

But I think an important lesson would be learned by letting Iran acquire a few nuclear weapons for their Shahab missiles that interestingly will be able to reach Israel and Europe, but not the US.

It's also interesting that the US and Israel have invested in missile defense, while the Europeans refuse to.

When the Iranians finally have a bomb, they'll be able to tell most of the EU nations to kneel or face losing a few cities (the UK and France at least have a means of retaliation).

Certainly would add a new twist to the current situation in Europe regarding Muslims. International blackmail--it would be interesting to see how the UN would handle a situation like that.

Certainly would add a new twist to the current situation in Europe regarding Muslims. International blackmail--it would be interesting to see how the UN would handle a situation like that.

If it does happen, the US should veto any UN action against Iran. I'm tired of paying for old European mistakes.

1. WW I - no, we didn't win it for you, but it was costly to the US.
2. WW II - no, we didn't win it for you (except Japan, which is our fault), but it was costly to the US.
3. The aftermath of colonialism and its effect in the Cold War - gee thanks guys.
4. Postmodern European Chamberlainism. Once again, thanks a lot.

So, especially in light of #4, I'd like to see them negotiate their way out of the threat of Iranian nuclear blackmail. Defenseless, and with no real way to retaliate, and an unwillingness to invade Iran, and a willingness to just talk - why they'll have every European woman in a beekeeper outfit in a month.

Why yes, yes he did.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/14/world/main1124255.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10460807
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4615172.stm

wasnt the translation used by the German paper that interviewed him not shown up to be inaccurate?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

the point im making is the 'lets attack iran' dynamic is following a predictible tangent. connect him somehow with hitler. link him with WMD. its the same line the US tool over Saddam and im amazed there are people who are swallowing it hool, line and sinker without any critical thought.

no-one has offered any explaination as to why the Iranians would nuke Israel. to give it back to the Palesitnains? despite the facy they have rendered it iinhabtible in clearing it.

no-one has offered any explaination as to why the Iranians would nuke Israel. to give it back to the Palesitnains? despite the facy they have rendered it iinhabtible in clearing it.

They don't have to nuke Jerusalem. Just Haifa and Tel Aviv and a few other areas.

They don't care about the Palestinians. They just want to kill the Jews at any cost.

Besides, people moved back into Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather quickly.

They don't have to nuke Jerusalem. Just Haifa and Tel Aviv and a few other areas.

They don't care about the Palestinians. They just want to kill the Jews at any cost.

Besides, people moved back into Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather quickly.

the bushevik propaganda machine at its finest. back that one up please.

If it does happen, the US should veto any UN action against Iran. I'm tired of paying for old European mistakes.

1. WW I - no, we didn't win it for you, but it was costly to the US.

We sure as hell pulled more than our weight.

2. WW II - no, we didn't win it for you (except Japan, which is our fault), but it was costly to the US.

We did what it took to win.

3. The aftermath of colonialism and its effect in the Cold War - gee thanks guys.

No kidding.

4. Postmodern European Chamberlainism. Once again, thanks a lot.

Appeasement really didn't work the first time, either.

So, especially in light of #4, I'd like to see them negotiate their way out of the threat of Iranian nuclear blackmail. Defenseless, and with no real way to retaliate, and an unwillingness to invade Iran, and a willingness to just talk - why they'll have every European woman in a beekeeper outfit in a month.

I'd like to see how soon it takes for them to exclaim "Oh crap, where's America now?"
America ain't perfect, but we've got a bark that is backed up by a really, really nasty bite.

the bushevik propaganda machine at its finest. back that one up please.

He's right. The Palestinians are an Arab puppet. They don't really care about them; they're using them as the "poor abused Arabs" to justify their anti-Zionist agenda. At any rate, any nation willing to nuke Israel can't really care too much about the Palestinians...it's such a small nation...

the bushevik propaganda machine at its finest. back that one up please.

Easy. Do you see the Iranians making any moves to defend the Palestinians against the current Israeli ultimatum?

Any threats of an oil embargo if Israel doesn't let up?

Nope. Nada. Zip.

In fact, it looks like the Palestinians don't have ANYONE on their side. The Egyptians are lining up soldiers on their side of Gaza to PREVENT Palestinians from escaping into Egypt. The Syrians aren't moving ANY of their forces to threaten Israel.

Iran could easily make a lot of trouble in the Gulf, and severely disrupt worldwide oil supplies through an embargo of their own, and damaging shipping and terminals in the Gulf. But they aren't even threatening to do that over the Palestinians.

They obviously care little for the Palestinians, and a lot for their nuclear program - which is what they are reserving those threats for (and they've made them on that basis).

Wonder why their nuclear program is so important?

Ahmanijad wants Europe to take back all the Israelis, or else. The "or else" might mean nuking Israel, or it might mean nuking an EU state that has no ability to stop the missile or retaliate.

wasnt the translation used by the German paper that interviewed him not shown up to be inaccurate?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

the point im making is the 'lets attack iran' dynamic is following a predictible tangent. connect him somehow with hitler. link him with WMD. its the same line the US tool over Saddam and im amazed there are people who are swallowing it hool, line and sinker without any critical thought.

no-one has offered any explaination as to why the Iranians would nuke Israel. to give it back to the Palesitnains? despite the facy they have rendered it iinhabtible in clearing it.

Despite the fact that Ahmadinejad is about as radical a national leader you can get...and that he publicly declared he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" and any "attack" on Iran would result in retaliation against Israel

Despite the fact that Ahmadinejad is about as radical a national leader you can get...and that he publicly declared he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" and any "attack" on Iran would result in retaliation against Israel

that much quoted 'wipe them off the map' phrase isnt even linguisticly possible in pharsee. he was referring to the Israeli political elite who he believes have abused the memory of the holocaust to guilt europe into giving israel a carte blanche.

im not saying he is right, but lets have a discussion about what he actually said, not what the spin was.

No one nation has ever won a 2 front war in history.,and I find it hard to believe Iran has ever 'Enriched" anything.Uranium or standard of living!
U.S. vs. Japan to the West and Germany to the East.

U.S. vs. Japan to the West and Germany to the East.

surely you mean Russia?

surely you mean Russia?
No, he just misread the statement. US was fighting on the two fronts he mentioned but with help of other countries as well, mostly in the European theatre.

If it does happen, the US should veto any UN action against Iran. I'm tired of paying for old European mistakes.

1. WW I - no, we didn't win it for you, but it was costly to the US.
2. WW II - no, we didn't win it for you (except Japan, which is our fault), but it was costly to the US.
3. The aftermath of colonialism and its effect in the Cold War - gee thanks guys.
4. Postmodern European Chamberlainism. Once again, thanks a lot.

So, especially in light of #4, I'd like to see them negotiate their way out of the threat of Iranian nuclear blackmail. Defenseless, and with no real way to retaliate, and an unwillingness to invade Iran, and a willingness to just talk - why they'll have every European woman in a beekeeper outfit in a month.

1. Um, costly in what way? Finanically? Militarily? Politically? How?
2. You're right. 'You' didn't win it. It was a team effort from a lot of countries.
3. That's France to a small degree, but largely down to the UK. (Your No.1 ally and friend)
4. Again, where? Could you be less vague?

Oh, and thank you for yet again heaping 25ish seperate countries with seperate policies, politics, aims and agendas all together for your inaccurate and self aggrandising argument.

3. That's France to a small degree, but largely down to the UK. (Your No.1 ally and friend)

What about portugal belguim and germany!!!! Surely you can't let them off scot-free.

so angry, that they will write a letter to the Iranian Government, saying just how mad they are....

Something tells me the Iranians will tell them to stuff it.
Certainly the Iranian government will ignore the UN. What possible motivation do they have for ceding to it's wishes? None, of course, because the UN is a paper tiger.

Yet people continue to think that the UN was _close_ to solving the problems in Iraq. Just a little more time, and a little more, and maybe some more time. I think we would have seen divine intervention in Iraq before the UN acted. Same with Iran.

What about portugal belguim and germany!!!! Surely you can't let them off scot-free.

What colonial territories did Germany have after 1945 exactly?

Portugal and Belguim hardly qualify as major colonial powers- and the problems that resulted from their decolonisation hardly troubled the United States (or anybody internationally for that matter).

The fuck up that was the Congo still hasn't been resolved to this day. Angola was, well, similar.

What colonial territories did Germany have after 1945 exactly?

Portugal and Belguim hardly qualify as major colonial powers- and the problems that resulted from their decolonisation hardly troubled the United States (or anybody internationally for that matter).

The fuck up that was the Congo still hasn't been resolved to this day. Angola was, well, similar.
Portugal tried to hold on to their provinces in mozambique and others way too long, and then screwing them afterwards. Germany and Belgium created the seperation that lead to mutilations in the Congo, and Rwanda escpecially. It was Germans and Belgians that created the division between Hutu's and Tutsi's, and introduced forms of punishment such as the removal of hands.

And have sanctions worked? Even though if this time sanctions are imposed, any sufferring will be blamed solely on the US (and the west), right?

Sanctions don't work.
DING! DING! DING!

Portugal tried to hold on to their provinces in mozambique and others way too long, and then screwing them afterwards.
Yes. And this affected the United States adversely how? DK is alluding that the problems of decolonisation was a European problem that the United States had to 'pay for'.

Germany and Belgium created the seperation that lead to mutilations in the Congo, and Rwanda escpecially. It was Germans and Belgians that created the division between Hutu's and Tutsi's, and introduced forms of punishment such as the removal of hands.
I see how Belguim was involved, but I know nowt about the German involvement post 1945. Source/Link?

Again, how did these affect the United States adversely exactly? I do recall that the little the United Nations did do, was a pathetic and abhorrent amount.

Wow, this thread is the longest stretch of jingoistic masturbation on electronic media to date.

For all that everyone likes to spank themselves chanting "The UN is worthless, the UN is a paper tiger" over and over, none of you have the balls to release your stranglehold on sovereignty to the international community as a whole if you were the leaders of your own country so quit bitching.

As long as every country in the world wants to be Number One and just keeps looking out for Number One, no international body is ever going to succeed.

Again, how did these affect the United States adversely exactly?
Well portugal didnt. Rwanda did in the fact that we had a nagging urge to enter, yet after the Somalian disaster we decided not to.

As long as every country in the world wants to be Number One and just keeps looking out for Number One, no international body is ever going to succeed.

Don't blame the US for that one - we had plenty of nations that gave us fine examples.

Don't blame the US for that one - we had plenty of nations that gave us fine examples.

And where in that post did I blame the United States specifically? Paranoia and Persecution Complex, much?

Of course I have yet to hear people from other countries put up such a big fucking uproar on what a useless rotted limb the UN is in comparison to the US.

Well portugal didnt. Rwanda did in the fact that we had a nagging urge to enter, yet after the Somalian disaster we decided not to.

And that's 'Europe's' fault is it?

And where in that post did I blame the United States specifically? Paranoia and Persecution Complex, much?


Nope. But you either blame the US or Bush, so I thought I would pre-empt you.

Nope. But you either blame the US or Bush, so I thought I would pre-empt you.

And pre-emption did the world wonders today (coughcoughIraqcoughcough). I'd say something about assumption except you're the one who thinks the world is better off with every Semitic Middle Easterner (except for Israelis) extinct.

But if you take out nuke facilities, wouldn't that cause a huge mess?

No, Israel did it to Iraq during...some war...forget which one, and no radiation escaped.

No, Israel did it to Iraq during...some war...forget which one, and no radiation escaped.

Israel did it to Iraq when there was no war. The reactor at Osirak was destroyed - luckily for everyone, the reactor was not fueled at the time. The containment and the core were completely destroyed by repeated hits.

So to put it simply, even the possibility of a nuclear Iran really, really sucks.


At least you'd have peace in the Middle East then.

so angry, that they will write a letter to the Iranian Government, saying just how mad they are....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/03/iran.deadline.ap/index.html



Something tells me the Iranians will tell them to stuff it.

I kinda hope Iran does. It'll be interesting to see what the UN does if they do.

Of course the Iranians will tell them to stuff it. The UN is just a useless little international country club run by USA, UK, Russia, China, France, Germany, etc. The UN itself can't do anything except whine and cry about how the widdle Iwanians have big scawy nooks. :D

It'll take Russia or China to tell them to quit, because as of late, nobody's going to listen to the USA and no-one else will do anythign about it.:headbang:

Russia and China will do nothing either. For one, Russia and Iran have to much blood between them and China has a bigger threat to deal with.

Israel did it to Iraq when there was no war. The reactor at Osirak was destroyed - luckily for everyone, the reactor was not fueled at the time. The containment and the core were completely destroyed by repeated hits.

Okay, just checking. Messing around with radioactive stuff can be risky, so... heh. :D

Russia and China will do nothing either. For one, Russia and Iran have to much blood between them and China has a bigger threat to deal with.

Yes, but Russia and China probably have a better chance than the USA does at telling Iran to stop enriching uranium, but I didn't think they'd do anything. I was just saying they could if they wanted to.

did he? did he really?

Let me put it to you this way. If he sat foot in Germany, he can legally be arrested for it is illegal in Germany to deny the Holocaust.

its iraq all over again. the neo-cons arent even smart enough to change the record after the last debacle

Hey. Iran isn't cooperating with the IAEA as prescribed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

No one nation has ever won a 2 front war in history.,and I find it hard to believe Iran has ever 'Enriched" anything.Uranium or standard of living!

USA did in the 1940s.

No, I say we let the Europeans fight this one. Sure, we'll do sanctions with everyone else.

But I think an important lesson would be learned by letting Iran acquire a few nuclear weapons for their Shahab missiles that interestingly will be able to reach Israel and Europe, but not the US.

It's also interesting that the US and Israel have invested in missile defense, while the Europeans refuse to.

When the Iranians finally have a bomb, they'll be able to tell most of the EU nations to kneel or face losing a few cities (the UK and France at least have a means of retaliation).

Don't the US already have sanctions on Iran due to the Hostage Crisis and other incidents?

What about portugal belguim and germany!!!! Surely you can't let them off scot-free.

So very true.

No, Israel did it to Iraq during...some war...forget which one, and no radiation escaped.

Israel didn't do theirs during a war.

Yes, but Russia and China probably have a better chance than the USA does at telling Iran to stop enriching uranium, but I didn't think they'd do anything. I was just saying they could if they wanted to.

Nope. Iran isn't listening to no one.

so angry, that they will write a letter to the Iranian Government, saying just how mad they are....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/03/iran.deadline.ap/index.html



Something tells me the Iranians will tell them to stuff it.

And essentially the US will be unable to do anything effective either.

Proponents of airstrikes a la Osiraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/osiraq.htm)
should take note of this:
American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

Read the whole article - airstrikes are unteniable.

For a much more in depth overview of why a US attack is "unviable" (sic) Read James Fallow's Will Iran Be Next? (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows).

Nope. Iran isn't listening to no one.

Double negative. Meaning....Iran listens to everyone.

you really have a thing for biased media, don't you?

the point is, the UN is simply incompotent.

USA did in the 1940s.

I believe the mongols did too, and the British fought on several different fronts against several different nations and totally won in the Seven Years War, (French Indian War to Americans)

USA did in the 1940s.
Excuse me?

I assume you are talking about WW2 in which case you are a jingoistic history revisionist.

What about
UK
France
Belgium
Canada
Russia
Portugal
Spain
and all the other allies?

claiming WW2 as an american win is making a mockery of all the allied soldiers who fought for their respective countries.

Double negative. Meaning....Iran listens to everyone.

Oh bullcrap.

Excuse me?

I assume you are talking about WW2 in which case you are a jingoistic history revisionist.

What about
UK
France
Belgium
Canada
Russia
Portugal
Spain
and all the other allies?

claiming WW2 as an american win is making a mockery of all the allied soldiers who fought for their respective contries.

Oh shut up! In the Pacific, the US pretty much fought alone so yes. I can claim that as an American Win and the US was fighting in Europe as well as North Africa. And Spain was technically neutral in the war. Belgium was over runned in 1940. Don't know much about Portugal and France was also overrunned in 1940 though was instrumental in assisting us thanks to the French Resisstance suppling intelligence.

Yeah yer right, nobody listens to the UN.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4720962.stm

So I agree with the other nutters. If countries ignore the UN, they should be nuked.

Oh bullcrap.

I'm not the one with serious grammatical errors. Nyah.

"We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do, we'll propose a bill suggesting a mild disapproval of you....":D

Oh shut up! In the Pacific, the US pretty much fought alone so yes. I can claim that as an American Win and the US was fighting in Europe as well as North Africa. And Spain was technically neutral in the war. Belgium was over runned in 1940. Don't know much about Portugal and France was also overrunned in 1940 though was instrumental in assisting us thanks to the French Resisstance suppling intelligence.

As a "history majoy, duh", you fail to appreciate many of the intricacies of grammar.

Incidentally, were the troops in the sub-continent American?:rolleyes:

"We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do, we'll propose a bill suggesting a mild disapproval of you....":D

Actually it's "We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do, we'll write a joint memorandum suggesting a mild disapproval of you". (Damned history exam!)

God bless Punch!

Actually it's "We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do, we'll write a joint memorandum suggesting a mild disapproval of you". (Damned history exam!)

God bless Punch!

You may well have done the same exam as me......:p

GCSE history 2005?

Excuse me?

I assume you are talking about WW2 in which case you are a jingoistic history revisionist.

What about
UK
France
Belgium
Canada
Russia
Portugal
Spain
and all the other allies?

claiming WW2 as an american win is making a mockery of all the allied soldiers who fought for their respective countries.

Not to mention the fact that one in three soldiers that died were Russian.

Not to mention the fact that one in three soldiers that died were Russian.

It's a damn sight more than that. The Allies did not take 60 million casualties, whereas the Russians lost 20 million.

You may well have done the same exam as me......:p

GCSE history 2005?

It was OCR, I think:p At least I got an A* out of it, that's all I need to know.

It's a damn sight more than that. The Allies did not take 60 million casualties, whereas the Russians lost 20 million.

Well, one in three what my AS history textbook says. I'll have a look in wikipedia. This is going to annoy me until I find out....

EDIT: Here we go! It's more like two in three...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png

Estimates vary because the records are not too good. I've seen estimates between 20 and 26 million. So it depends what you call the official records.

It was OCR, I think:p At least I got an A* out of it, that's all I need to know.

Its all that concerned me really.

Shame about AS though. Russia is not to our tastes.

Don't the US already have sanctions on Iran due to the Hostage Crisis and other incidents?
A lot of that was lifted in the 1990s. The only thing we won't sell them is military equipment.

A lot of that was lifted in the 1990s. The only thing we won't sell them is military equipment.

Thank you for the clarification :)

What do you call "The European Theater" and "The Pacific Theater" if not a two-front war?



China - Japan - Lots of water and various islands - US - Lots of water and no islands - Britain - Germany - Russia

China - Japan - Lots of water and various islands - US - Lots of water and no islands - Britain - Germany - Russia

The US did have islands Ravenshrike. I guess you forgot the Philippines, Guam, HAWAII, The Aleutians.

I think he just meant no islands between the US and britain.

Which might come as a shock to the people of the azores, iceland....

I think he just meant no islands between the US and britain.

Which might come as a shock to the people of the azores, iceland....

And Bermuda.

barbados.....we could go on all day

unless you want to get more wierd and bring in the likes of Bear Island.

barbados.....we could go on all day

unless you want to get more wierd and bring in the likes of Bear Island.

Prince Edward Island :D

Oh shut up! In the Pacific, the US pretty much fought alone so yes.
Even though the Second Sino-Japanese War (which, even at the very height of the United States' Pacific War, involved the majority of all Imperial Japanese Army troops) had been raging since 1937… :rolleyes:

funny tread:p
At most it is smokey,at less it is naif

go on it is like a soap,

Curtain fall down, on actors .

Even though the Second Sino-Japanese War (which, even at the very height of the United States' Pacific War, involved the majority of all Imperial Japanese Army troops) had been raging since 1937… :rolleyes:

That's the Chinese-Indian-Burma theater.

That's the Chinese-Indian-Burma theater.
Who cares what's it called. It shows that the US most emphatically were NOT alone against Japan. Disproving your assertion.

Who cares what's it called. It shows that the US most emphatically were NOT alone against Japan. Disproving your assertion.

Well its a big difference for a Brit was in charge of that theater whereas it were the Americans who had control of the Pacific.

Well its a big difference for a Brit was in charge of that theater whereas it were the Americans who had control of the Pacific.
and?

Are you claiming the US had no help in fighting Japan because a Brit was in charge of the help? :rolleyes:

This brings your jingoistic views to a new level.

and?

Are you claiming the US had no help in fighting Japan because a Brit was in charge of the help? :rolleyes:

This brings your jingoistic views to a new level.

Woah! Where did I say that? Nowhere did I ever say that.

a Brit was in charge of that theatre
Now you are claiming that “a Brit” (rather than individuals like Chiang Kai-shek, Mao Zedong, Yan Xishan, Feng Yuxiang, Zhu De and He Yingqin, who were Kuomintang and Communist leaders and generals) was the commander “in charge” of the allied effort in Second Sino-Japanese War? :confused:

Woah! Where did I say that? Nowhere did I ever say that.
*sigh*

allow me to summarize the conversation this far:

Corneliu: The US won WW2 on two front.

East Canuck: It was a group effort. Don't forget Canada, UK, Russia, etc.

Corneliu: The pacific theather was won by the US singlehandedly.

Some Posters: What about the Sino-Japan war. You had help.

Corneliu: That's doesn't count, a brit was in charge.

East Canuck: WTF? You say you had no help, when showed you had some you claim it doesn't count as it was a Brit in charge?

Corneliu: I never said that.


Change your major to reading comprehension. Do it now.

Now you are claiming that “a Brit” (rather than individuals like Chiang Kai-shek, Mao Zedong, Yan Xishan, Feng Yuxiang, Zhu De and He Yingqin, who were Kuomintang and Communist leaders and generals) was the commander “in charge” of the allied effort in Second Sino-Japanese War? :confused:

Once again, someone failed to read everything. A brit was in charge of the Chinese-India-Burma theater.

*sigh*

allow me to summarize the conversation this far:

Corneliu: The US won WW2 on two front.

East Canuck: It was a group effort. Don't forget Canada, UK, Russia, etc.

Corneliu: The pacific theather was won by the US singlehandedly.

Some Posters: What about the Sino-Japan war. You had help.

Corneliu: "That's the Chinese-Indian-Burma theater." That's doesn't count, a brit was in charge.

East Canuck: WTF? You say you had no help, when showed you had some you claim it doesn't count as it was a Brit in charge?

Corneliu: I never said that.


Change your major to reading comprehension. Do it now.

Subtle omission you threw in there.

Selective quoting, clearly.

Once again, someone failed to read everything. A brit was in charge of the Chinese-India-Burma theater.
Even though "a Brit" was not in charge of the Chinese armies which opposed Japan and which dealt with the majority of Japan's soldiers? :confused:

Look, I could go at this all night, but I'll just come out and say that you are wrong. And even if you were not, this whole train of thought that you are going down is non sequitor to your argument (as another poster pointed out to you).

And the most important conclusion of all? You have some extreme gaps in your historical knowledge.

Once again, someone failed to read everything. A brit was in charge of the Chinese-India-Burma theater.
Ok, so you mean in the Pacific Theatre between the US and Japan, the US won single handedly?

Yes. I'd agree that where only the US and Japanese were fighting, the US won.

Otherwise, you are disregarding the Allied war effort. Again, the Soviets.

*sigh*

allow me to summarize the conversation this far:

Corneliu: The US won WW2 on two front

East Canuck: It was a group effort. Don't forget Canada, UK, Russia, etc.

Which was true. Now point out where I said differently?

Corneliu: The pacific theather was won by the US singlehandedly.

Some Posters: What about the Sino-Japan war. You had help.

The Sino-Japanese War has been going on for 4 years before US entry into world war II and 2 years before the European War started. I also said primarily alone in the Pacific. Shall we look at the word primarily?

Corneliu: That's doesn't count, a brit was in charge.

Once again, I never said it didn't count. Please stop inferring words that I never said please?

East Canuck: WTF? You say you had no help, when showed you had some you claim it doesn't count as it was a Brit in charge?

Corneliu: I never said that.

And I didn't. You inferred something that wasn't there.

Change your major to reading comprehension. Do it now.

No! Why? because I didn't say anything that wasn't historically true. You put words down that I never said and claimed that it proves I know zippo about history. I have studied War World Two in depth, especially the Pacific theater. Let me remind you that the Brits were driven out of the Pacific theater. The Australians and New Zealand helped us around Guadlecanal and without them, I don't think we would've won that battle. However, US took on the brunt of Japan across the Central Pacific as well as up the Solomons towards the Philippines. Did we have help? Yes but primarily from Australia and New Zealand and even then, it was limited to what they had. What we have here is a mix up in THEATERS OF WAR. In the PACIFIC THEATER, it was MOSTLY a US show. In Europe, it was a US/British/Canadian/Polish/Checz/USSR show. In the Chinese Indian Burma theater, it was a British/American/Chinese show. You see what I am saying now?

Subtle omission you threw in there.

Selective quoting, clearly.
summary is not quoting.

Reading comprehension might be advised.

Ok, so you mean in the Pacific Theatre between the US and Japan, the US won single handedly?

Yes. I'd agree that where only the US and Japanese were fighting, the US won.

FINALLY! Someone got what I was saying.

Otherwise, you are disregarding the Allied war effort. Again, the Soviets.

Wrong again. I never disregarded the allies. Not a single solitary one.

Ok, so you mean in the Pacific Theatre between the US and Japan, the US won single handedly?
That would be analogous to claiming that, in the Eastern Front theatre between the Soviet Union and Germany, the Soviet Union won "single-handedly".

Which, of course, would mean ignoring the Western Allied strategic bombing campaign against Germany, or Germany’s commitments to other fronts (such as the West or North Africa), as having any effect whatsoever on the Eastern Front.

Ok, so you mean in the Pacific Theatre between the US and Japan, the US won single handedly?

Yes. I'd agree that where only the US and Japanese were fighting, the US won.

Otherwise, you are disregarding the Allied war effort. Again, the Soviets.
not to mention that it's not like the Japanese were opposed only by the US, as evidence of a whole other theatre where they had to fight.

FINALLY! Someone got what I was saying.

Great. So you're point was:

"When the US (and the US alone) fought the Japanese, the US won. But when the US and the other Allies in the Theatre (the British, the Soviets etc) fought the Japanese, I don't count that as the Pacific Theatre"
Is that it?



Wrong again. I never disregarded the allies. Not a single solitary one.
Well, the Soviets fought the Japanese too you know. Quite important in tying down the Kwantung Army on mainland China.

Great. So you're point was:

"When the US (and the US alone) fought the Japanese, the US won. But when the US and the other Allies in the Theatre (the British, the Soviets etc) fought the Japanese, I don't count that as the Pacific Theatre"
Is that it?

A couple of points. 1) The USSR didn't start fighting Japan until August 8, 1945. Until then, they were not fighting Japan officially. 2) Britain's actions during the war after they got kicked out of the Pacific was mostly in the CIB theater.

Well, the Soviets fought the Japanese too you know. Quite important in tying down the Kwantung Army on mainland China.

After the war was pretty much over but yes they did but at that point, it didn't really matter in the Grand scheme of things.

FINALLY! Someone got what I was saying.



Wrong again. I never disregarded the allies. Not a single solitary one.
Oh but you did. In post 108:

Oh shut up! In the Pacific, the US pretty much fought alone so yes. I can claim that as an American Win and the US was fighting in Europe as well as North Africa. And Spain was technically neutral in the war. Belgium was over runned in 1940. Don't know much about Portugal and France was also overrunned in 1940 though was instrumental in assisting us thanks to the French Resisstance suppling intelligence.

and post 96 have you claiming that the USA won a war on two front when refering to WW2 as if you were the only reason.

Oh but you did. In post 108:



and post 96 have you claiming that the USA won a war on two front when refering to WW2 as if you were the only reason.

You bolded a key phrase. I'll let you figure out what that phrase is.

A couple of points. 1) The USSR didn't start fighting Japan until August 8, 1945. Until then, they were not fighting Japan officially. 2) Britain's actions during the war after they got kicked out of the Pacific was mostly in the CIB theater.

Fine. So you mean the Pacific Theatre as being Japan-----> and West to America?

Thats not the general consensus as to what 'Pacific Theatre' means.



After the war was pretty much over but yes they did but at that point, it didn't really matter in the Grand scheme of things.

No, it kinda did matter. The Kwantung Army was the elite of the Japanese Army. Tying them down aided the war effort enormously in the East.

The USSR's entry was a significant blow to Japan, similar in effect that in WW1 the US's entry was a signifcant blow to Imperial Germany.

You bolded a key phrase. I'll let you figure out what that phrase is.
The one where you disregard the help and effort of every other country in tying up Japan ressources to help the US fight them as a collective effort?

The one where you disregard the help and effort of every other country in tying up Japan ressources to help the US fight them as a collective effort?

And in which theater are we talking about here? CIB? Yep they did but we weren't talking about the CIB but of the Pacific Theater. They are 2 distinctly different theaters.

They are 2 distinctly different theaters.

No. They're 2 different fronts, but part of the same 'Theatre'.

For example: The Eastern Front was part of the European Theatre, but it was not a 'Theatre' on its own.

And in which theater are we talking about here? CIB? Yep they did but we weren't talking about the CIB but of the Pacific Theater. They are 2 distinctly different theaters.
It is not logical or even possible to divide up fronts the way you are doing and try to claim that they are not interrelated, especially when one nation (Japan) was fighting in all of them (and results on one front had repercussions for considerations regarding other fronts).

No. They're 2 different fronts, but part of the same 'Theatre'.

For example: The Eastern Front was part of the European Theatre, but it was not a 'Theatre' on its own.

Nope. They are different theaters of War.

As to the European Theater, there were 2 fronts to that but there were no two fronts in the Pacific. It was the Pacific Theater and the Chinese India Burma Theater.

Nope. They are different theaters of War.

As to the European Theater, there were 2 fronts to that but there were no two fronts in the Pacific. It was the Pacific Theater and the Chinese India Burma Theater.
Your distinction between 'theatres' and 'fronts' is arbitary, and therefore pointless.

Nope. They are different theaters of War.

As to the European Theater, there were 2 fronts to that but there were no two fronts in the Pacific. It was the Pacific Theater and the Chinese India Burma Theater.

No, there were many fronts to the European Theatre. Examples: The Balkans, The Italian, the Western, the Eastern, the Scandinavian (normally just Norway)

Jesus, you say you have a degree in history?!

No, there were many fronts to the European Theatre. Examples: The Balkans, The Italian, the Western, the Eastern, the Scandinavian (normally just Norway)

Jesus, you say you have a degree in history?!

Uh dude....even Wikipedia calls it the Chinese-India-Burma Theater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Burma_India_Theater_of_World_War_II

I have also studied the pacific campaign and even have a pacific campaign book. Guess what? It deals with...you guessed it, the Pacific War and not the CIB. I also have links to the campaigns in the CIB Theater. You want those too for further proof that they were 2 seperate theaters?

As to my history studies, I am one year away from getting it.

it still be a good soap.i always wondered why it was soap?
I thought you could clean yourself out...
:)

Uh dude....even Wikipedia calls it the Chinese-India-Burma Theater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Burma_India_Theater_of_World_War_II

I have also studied the pacific campaign and even have a pacific campaign book. Guess what? It deals with...you guessed it, the Pacific War and not the CIB. I also have links to the campaigns in the CIB Theater. You want those too for further proof that they were 2 seperate theaters?

As to my history studies, I am one year away from getting it.
I’m not sure if you are intentionally trying to sound foolish, but you need to realise that these labels are applied by academics to classify history, and are not always uniform (it depends what the historian is talking about).

For example, we might speak of “the European War” or the “European Theatre”, or the “European Air War” or the "Strategic Bombing Campaign over Europe" or the “Atlantic Theatre” or the "U-Boat War" or the "War against British Merchant Shipping", and then we might refer to the “Eastern Front” or the “Russo-German War” and within it we might specifically talk about the “Northern Front” or the “Caucasus front”, or the “Leningrad Front” or the “Lapland War”, or the “Romanian Stalingrad front”, or the "Moscow Front" or the "Finnish front" etc, etc, ad nauseum.

The point I’m trying to make is… your ramblings are becoming nonsensical.

Uh dude....even Wikipedia calls it the Chinese-India-Burma Theater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Burma_India_Theater_of_World_War_II


I can change Wiki.

I have also studied the pacific campaign and even have a pacific campaign book. Guess what? It deals with...you guessed it, the Pacific War and not the CIB. I also have links to the campaigns in the CIB Theater. You want those too for further proof that they were 2 seperate theaters?
Good for you. Can't help but notice that the Pacific Theatre (when everyone else is discussing it, have you noticed that?) is used to describe all actions that occured in East/South East/ Centralish Asia during WW2. Including Burma, Malaysia, China, Manchuria, Pacific Islands.

Now, maybe thats purely down the US education system, but its general recognised everywhere that there was one Pacific Theatre, but many many Fronts.


As to my history studies, I am one year away from getting it.
Keep on truckin'.

I can change Wiki.

Doesn't change the fact that it was a totally seperate theater of war.

Good for you. Can't help but notice that the Pacific Theatre (when everyone else is discussing it, have you noticed that?) is used to describe all actions that occured in East/South East/ Centralish Asia during WW2. Including Burma, Malaysia, China, Manchuria, Pacific Islands.

When it comes to history, be exact. Generalizations don't work when you are dealing with history. There was the European Theater punctuated with the Eastern Front, Western Front, and the Italian Front. There was the Pacific Theater and there was the Chinese Indian Burma theater. All of them had their own campaigns and all of them had their own commanders and chains of command. Sorry for being exact but when I deal with history, that is what I do. I become exact.

Now, maybe thats purely down the US education system, but its general recognised everywhere that there was one Pacific Theatre, but many many Fronts.

Your right. There was one Pacific Theater. There was also one CIB and one European theater. You are right that there were many different fronts in the Pacific. The CIB though was not one of those fronts.

Keep on truckin'.

No problem.

When it comes to history, be exact. Generalizations don't work when you are dealing with history. There was the European Theater punctuated with the Eastern Front, Western Front, and the Italian Front. There was the Pacific Theater and there was the Chinese Indian Burma theater. All of them had their own campaigns and all of them had their own commanders and chains of command. Sorry for being exact but when I deal with history, that is what I do. I become exact.

AS long as we're being picky, it was only one war with many theatres. So your claim that the US won two war at the same time is invalid. Again.

AS long as we're being picky, it was only one war with many theatres. So your claim that the US won two war at the same time is invalid. Again.

It was all part of World War II yes. I never claimed that we won the entire war alone. We played a big part in that victory. Now that we got that out of the way...we can break it down to the theaters. By doing so, it can be clearly pointed out that the US fought in the Pacific Theater of Operations pretty much alone with help from the Aussies and New Zealand down by their own islands. Once we left that part of the World, their help became less. The Majority of the battles were US vs Japan.

Wow, this thread is the longest stretch of jingoistic masturbation on electronic media to date.

For all that everyone likes to spank themselves chanting "The UN is worthless, the UN is a paper tiger" over and over, none of you have the balls to release your stranglehold on sovereignty to the international community as a whole if you were the leaders of your own country so quit bitching.

As long as every country in the world wants to be Number One and just keeps looking out for Number One, no international body is ever going to succeed.
I see what you want, but it's a pipe dream. What sovereign nation would want to be subservient to the hacks that populate the UN? Or the World Court? The best that the UN could ever become is a legitimate and impartial body where a country could come and be heard. Then, depending on the world's opinion, sanctions could be recommended. The enforcement is nil, so it would depend on obtaining commitments from the participating governments. There's nothing new about treaties and that's about all the UN can expect, in terms of governmental cooperation.

What sovereign nation would want to be subservient to..... the World Court?

Umm, most.

It was all part of World War II yes.
Which contradinct your claim of winning two wars at the same time in the 40s. Post 96.

I never claimed that we won the entire war alone.
Post 96 again. Also your post 102 which swept aside the effort of every other allied forces as meaningless when called on it.

We played a big part in that victory.
Never been denied. But then, Russia played an even bigger part.

Now that we got that out of the way...we can break it down to the theaters. By doing so, it can be clearly pointed out that the US fought in the Pacific Theater of Operations pretty much alone with help from the Aussies and New Zealand down by their own islands. Once we left that part of the World, their help became less. The Majority of the battles were US vs Japan.
These statements contraicts every other post you made that stated the US were at it alone in the Pacific theatre. You meant to say except for the Australians and New Zealanders. Another way to brush the war effort of other countries.

I mean, if we go by your way of debating, I can Claim that only Canadian inhabit North America. In twenty or so post, I'll recognize US citizen but state they don't count on some technicality or another. They I'll claim that Mexico in in anothe theatre: Central America and that it doesn't interact with Canada despite having commercial accord.

Umm, most.


Why ? Whats in it for them ?

Umm, most.
My mistake. But this _is_ the type of treaty that the UN needs to be effective. No sovereign nation is going to become subordinate to the General Assembly.

I never said that we did it alone. You are the only one saying that I did but I never said that we did it entirely alone.

I never said that we did it alone. You are the only one saying that I did but I never said that we did it entirely alone.
You did:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11289932&postcount=96

when called on it you replied the US was alone in the pacific.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11289932&postcount=108

which you contradicted yourself later on:
Now that we got that out of the way...we can break it down to the theaters. By doing so, it can be clearly pointed out that the US fought in the Pacific Theater of Operations pretty much alone with help from the Aussies and New Zealand down by their own islands. Once we left that part of the World, their help became less. The Majority of the battles were US vs Japan.

So let me repeat what I already said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11289932&postcount=137)

*sigh*

allow me to summarize the conversation this far:

Corneliu: The US won WW2 on two front.

East Canuck: It was a group effort. Don't forget Canada, UK, Russia, etc.

Corneliu: The pacific theather was won by the US singlehandedly.

Some Posters: What about the Sino-Japan war. You had help.

Corneliu: That's doesn't count, a brit was in charge.

East Canuck: WTF? You say you had no help, when showed you had some you claim it doesn't count as it was a Brit in charge?

Corneliu: I never said that.


Change your major to reading comprehension. Do it now.

I see it is still pointless to argue with you so I'm done with this thread.

You did:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11289932&postcount=96

when called on it you replied the US was alone in the pacific.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11289932&postcount=108

which you contradicted yourself later on:


So let me repeat what I already said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11289932&postcount=137)


I see it is still pointless to argue with you so I'm done with this thread.

And yet Corny continues to wonder why and complain to the mods I christened him Communal Property.

And yet Corny continues to wonder why and complain to the mods I christened him Communal Property.

Incase you haven't noticed, I haven't gone running to the mods in this thread. He can take what I said out of context all he wants but I know the truth that I have not said what he is accusing me of saying.

Post 96 has nothing to do with World War II but the original topic at hand. Which is the UN and Iran.

Same with post 108.

I like to know what the hell he wants me to see in those 2 posts where it deals with nothing about World War II but the original topic at hand.