Search results

Ieper? Is that another spelling of Yprés? (Pronounced about the same)

Always difficult to sort fact from opinion in documentaries - it tends to all get put forward as fact. Good luck with your studies - I really enjoyed history when I was younger. I wish I could ahve studied it at third level too. Still, such is life.

Because Hitler declared war with Japan. EDIT: on the US along with Japan's declaration - sorry for being so unclear.

Certainly true today. It's not quite as clear-cut back then. These were relatively small bombs by modern standards. They killed far less people than conventional bombs had in Tokyo, as was mentioned earlier. Still doesn't make them right, but weighed against the lives of millions of young...

Okay. Enough here, or I lock the thread. If you two need a cooling off period, log off.

Probably somewhat true. Details like that tend to be played down the further up the chain of command you go, but I'll concede the point. Still looks like a good option for them methinks.

I'd argue against that. I can certainly understand the preference of dropping some new doo-hicky superweapon they didn't understand the long term consequences of (the scientists may have, but I doubt the people making those decisions did) over losing an estimated couple of million troops...

Quite plausible. On the other hand, with just one front, maybe Germany would have gotten as far as the Urals? I don't know enough to judge. Similar to the one front problem - very hard to speculate. The Russians were arming fast. A few extra months would have made a lot of things different.

Personally, I reckon we owe the Japanese some kudos. If they hadn't attacked the US, and if Hitler hadn't joined them in their declaration of war, we'd have had to have seen just how tough the Russians really were. Truth was, Britain had held off the Germans before the US joined the party and...

How many countries have used nukes in anything but testing again?

Good post man. When quoteing something like that though, it's probably worth adding a link to the source though. :wink: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tv/third_degree/stars_stripes_interview.shtml

Good stuff. On a more serious note, did you guys here that there's enough plutonium missing from Los Alamos to blow up Washington. Both Washingtons. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/30/BAGGQFVT7J1.DTL

:P http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/110BB55F-6635-4F73-A470-FE1DF9D8ED41.htm I can't vouch for the tv, but... {Thanks to Majed for the link}

There's "no offense" and there's BS excuses for unacceptable language. Please don't make me decide which you're saying in the future.

The arguements on that site Gray gave are interesting: read them people, then rationally argue against them, if you would. I find the video evidence that at least one of the planes wasn't a standard Boeing to be worrying, though inconclusive. I decline to accept their arguements that an...

Good post. Do you think that the people who support and push for this are actually in favour of repression of civil liberties or are they simply gullible people being lead by some very cynnical administrations.

Yes.

:oops: Sorry Serge. Pado, I was splitting a post into multiple parts so I could answer each one seperately. Don't call me school-boy.

I don't see how someone argueing against US policy is racist. If I see a racist post here, I'll delete it. If I see a number of them, I'll padlock the thread. Simple as that. You have a point though - if this degenerates into a "Bush is right" "No he's not, you w@nker" style of thread, it...

Which is far from saying that it can't be closed. It's just got a bit more leeway than usual.