my advice to you is to go to your nearest library and get a book, or 2, or 3 about World War 2, and the Japanese and American battles in the Pacific, and then maybe you'll learn a thing or two about the war
Buy on AliExpress.com
The Lebanese political crisis!!! (32 Viewers)
- Thread starter JCK
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Siniora blames opposition for 'dangerous time'
- 2007 / 3 / 23
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said on Thursday that his country was passing through a "dangerous time," for which he blamed the opposition. In a televised address on Thursday from the Grand Serail, Siniora spoke at length about his proposed reform plans for the public sector, but devoted only a few words to the ongoing political crisis and mounting tensions in Beirut that he has repeatedly blamed on his political rivals.
"The main reason behind the added tension is the breaching of the Constitution and violation of democratic institutions," the premier said.
"And now we need extra efforts to get through this crisis," he added.
Siniora said that the "only way out" of the nearly four-month-old deadlock in Lebanon was multi-party dialogue.
"While we support dialogue without any preliminary conditions, it must not lead to the hampering of the Constitution," the premier said.
"We are going back to zero by using practices from the periods of [Syrian] tutelage and the fad of an infinite protest in Downtown Beirut," he said.
"All of these violate our Constitution," he added.
Siniora criticized the opposition for its reaction to a gathering of 45 MPs from the March 14 Forces at Parliament on Tuesday. The lawmakers had called on Speaker Nabih Berri to convene the spring session.
"The anti-government sit-in in Downtown was welcomed as an expression of their opinions, even though it is a step outside the Constitution and is hurting the economy ... but a protest by a few MPs in Parliament was greeted as a great provocation and a breach of acceptable behavior," Siniora said.
The prime minister reiterated his allegation that the opposition was attempting to carry out a "coup" against the democratically elected government.
"We will not accept anything that would affect our democracy," Siniora said. "Everyone acknowledges the transparency of this Cabinet and its respect for the law."
He also accused "some parties" of hiding behind the cover of democracy, adding that "when it is not convenient anymore, they turn their back against it and reject dialogue."
"Whatever the obstacles, we must not lose faith in ourselves and this country," Siniora said.
- 2007 / 3 / 23
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said on Thursday that his country was passing through a "dangerous time," for which he blamed the opposition. In a televised address on Thursday from the Grand Serail, Siniora spoke at length about his proposed reform plans for the public sector, but devoted only a few words to the ongoing political crisis and mounting tensions in Beirut that he has repeatedly blamed on his political rivals.
"The main reason behind the added tension is the breaching of the Constitution and violation of democratic institutions," the premier said.
"And now we need extra efforts to get through this crisis," he added.
Siniora said that the "only way out" of the nearly four-month-old deadlock in Lebanon was multi-party dialogue.
"While we support dialogue without any preliminary conditions, it must not lead to the hampering of the Constitution," the premier said.
"We are going back to zero by using practices from the periods of [Syrian] tutelage and the fad of an infinite protest in Downtown Beirut," he said.
"All of these violate our Constitution," he added.
Siniora criticized the opposition for its reaction to a gathering of 45 MPs from the March 14 Forces at Parliament on Tuesday. The lawmakers had called on Speaker Nabih Berri to convene the spring session.
"The anti-government sit-in in Downtown was welcomed as an expression of their opinions, even though it is a step outside the Constitution and is hurting the economy ... but a protest by a few MPs in Parliament was greeted as a great provocation and a breach of acceptable behavior," Siniora said.
The prime minister reiterated his allegation that the opposition was attempting to carry out a "coup" against the democratically elected government.
"We will not accept anything that would affect our democracy," Siniora said. "Everyone acknowledges the transparency of this Cabinet and its respect for the law."
He also accused "some parties" of hiding behind the cover of democracy, adding that "when it is not convenient anymore, they turn their back against it and reject dialogue."
"Whatever the obstacles, we must not lose faith in ourselves and this country," Siniora said.
Planned, yes. But to what the Vinman said, they had no plans on going ahead with it until the Emperor had time to capitulate. Once he didn't, they went ahead with the second.
Iwo Jima was essentially a dressed rehearsal for a land invasion of Japan to get the Emperor to capitulate. But as vicious as that battle turned out to be, with some 20k killed, it was clear there had to be other solutions than a bloody, prolonged land war on Japanese soil. It was the choice of the lesser of two evils. The debate still goes on which one was lesser, but I would still give the a-bombs the nod on that one.
Even so. Everyone fixates on the atomic bombs -- which today would be classified as puny tactical and not strategic weapons -- and totally miss the magnitude of the American firebombing campaigns on Japan. These were far more deadly to civilians, and far more questionable in terms of ethics, IMO.
The fact that people are quick to point fingers at the atomic bomb drops and yet make no mention at all of the firebombing campaigns is usually proof that those people have only a few limited slices of knowledge on the topic -- and that they are trying to operate logically well beyond where their own knowledge or understanding of the situation falls off. There's no logical reason why someone would ignore evidence that could support their arguments even better than the A-bomb drops ... the only explanation is, to be honest, ignorance of the situation.
Iwo Jima was essentially a dressed rehearsal for a land invasion of Japan to get the Emperor to capitulate. But as vicious as that battle turned out to be, with some 20k killed, it was clear there had to be other solutions than a bloody, prolonged land war on Japanese soil. It was the choice of the lesser of two evils. The debate still goes on which one was lesser, but I would still give the a-bombs the nod on that one.
Even so. Everyone fixates on the atomic bombs -- which today would be classified as puny tactical and not strategic weapons -- and totally miss the magnitude of the American firebombing campaigns on Japan. These were far more deadly to civilians, and far more questionable in terms of ethics, IMO.
The fact that people are quick to point fingers at the atomic bomb drops and yet make no mention at all of the firebombing campaigns is usually proof that those people have only a few limited slices of knowledge on the topic -- and that they are trying to operate logically well beyond where their own knowledge or understanding of the situation falls off. There's no logical reason why someone would ignore evidence that could support their arguments even better than the A-bomb drops ... the only explanation is, to be honest, ignorance of the situation.
int:
My initial comment on the subject stated my agreement with vinman on the issue of the A-bomb, specifically "little boy". But one cannot categorically opine on "fat man" as it was marred with controversy any which way you look at it. If the reason was the japanese dismissal of the first attack one need only look at how long it took to respond to the second attack compared to the 5 days response to the potsdam declaration, which is two more than the gap between the two attacks.
Moreover, one cannot deny the preponderance in ethical weight of a nuclear weapon over any other traditional one no matter how lethal simply because of its lasting effects which extent can hardly be quantified. Add to that the exclusivity of usage of such technology in warfare one could easily understand the bad press.
Moreover, one cannot deny the preponderance in ethical weight of a nuclear weapon over any other traditional one no matter how lethal simply because of its lasting effects which extent can hardly be quantified. Add to that the exclusivity of usage of such technology in warfare one could easily understand the bad press.
