^ also true

7/21/2006 12:20:16 AM

Quote :

"Hezbollah is NOT the official Lebanese Army--and if you don't believe me, you need to look that shit up."

Hezbollah is a political party that has seats in the Lebanese parliament. if ya dont boleedat, ya need ta look dat shit up.

Quote :

"Moreover, some members of Hezbollah’s leadership ARE listed as terrorists, particularly in Europe"

yeah, yeah. and in related news, the US Army and Marine Corps are knowingly recruiting Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists to shore up sagging enlistment numbers.

White Supremacists and radical anti-government "militia" members know that the US Military is the premiere institution in which to get specialized weapons and tactics training. Training that they can then take back and disseminate amongst their respective terrorist organizations.

Quote :

""There is mounting evidence that military recruiters and commanders, under intense pressure to meet manpower goals with the country at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, have relaxed standards designed to prohibit racist extremists from serving in the armed forces," Southern Poverty Law Center's Chief Executive Richard Cohen told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ... "The Army's dealing with that," Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said when asked to comment ... But the SPLC said in a report that military officers were proving less likely in wartime to weed out extremists, especially those in combat units. "We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," the report quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying. The center said young civilian extremists are encouraged by adult leaders to enlist in the military to gain access to weapons and training and to recruit other military personnel. "The reasons are obvious: soldiers are trained to be proficient with weapons, combat tactics and explosives, to train others in their use, and to operate in a highly disciplined culture ... The Defense Department investigator quoted in the report said he has identified 320 extremists over the past year, only two of whom have been discharged. Investigators also uncovered an online network of 57 neo-Nazis on active duty with the Army and Marines, spread across five military installations in the United States, the center's report said."

US terrorists operating in Baghdad.

beauty, eh?

7/21/2006 12:21:22 AM

Quote :

"Hezbollah is a political party that has seats in the Lebanese parliament. if ya dont boleedat, ya need ta look dat shit up."

so you would be cool with the republican party fielding their own army?

Quote :

"and in related news, the US Army and Marine Corps are knowingly recruiting Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists to shore up sagging enlistment numbers."

its not related at all.

7/21/2006 12:25:32 AM

Quote :

"so you would be cool with the republican party fielding their own army?"

They do. It's known as the "US Marine Corps"

7/21/2006 12:27:57 AM

Quote :

"you would be cool with the republican party fielding their own army? "

oh, i reckon the army is alredy republican.

im waiting for the democrats to muster a battalion....

i guess i oughtta pack a lunch..

7/21/2006 12:28:20 AM

Quote :

"Hezbollah is NOT the official Lebanese Army"

Hezbollah is the closest thing to an official army Lebanon has.

7/21/2006 12:29:27 AM

Quote :

"im waiting for the democrats to muster a battalion...."

We got one, it's the ACLU

7/21/2006 1:06:23 AM

^^schmoe has been right on most of his last couple posts. Hezbollah is the closest thing to an army in Lebanon. By the way, it seems like the official army and Hezbollah are going to fight together in case Israel tries to come in deeper in the south. That will make it very ugly.

7/21/2006 1:52:37 AM

The UN told Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah 6 years ago when Israel left.

7/21/2006 2:38:48 AM

^ that actually made me laugh

7/21/2006 3:36:22 AM

Quote :

"Hezbollah is the closest thing to an official army Lebanon has."

That's wrong. There is an official Lebanese Army that is funded, fielded, and reports directly to the Lebanese government. The only reason the Lebanese Army doesn't go in and take out Hezbollah is because a) Hezbollah is a part of the government and would veto any attempt, b) Hezbollah hasn't directly tried to tinker with domestic politics, and c) Hezbollah is better armed and more experienced than the Lebanese Army (ie. they would kick the Lebanese Army's ass).

7/21/2006 9:46:25 AM

Quote :

"Hezbollah is a part of the government and would veto any attempt"

iirc hezbollah only has a small handful of members of their legislature. their political wing is pretty new. not to say that they don't have influence on the gov't.

7/21/2006 9:50:39 AM

^ My bad. Veto is too strong of a term. I meant more that they would wield their influence to stop any direct military intervention against their militias. It is true that Hezbollah is only one faction among many within the Lebanese government, but from what I can gather, they are the largest and best organized among the various factions.

7/21/2006 10:26:02 AM

You're all over the map, schmoe. What does--your words--"[H]ezbollah is a legitimate army" have to do with "Hezbollah is a political party that has seats in the Lebanese parliament"? I post the following definitions for your edification and that of certain other TWW-ers:

"Hizbollah or Hezbollah (Arabic: "Party of God"): Militant Islamist organization founded in 1982 in southern Lebanon in response to the Israeli invasion and the Iranian Revolution (1979).

Its goals are to push Israel out of Lebanon and to form an Iranian-style Shiite Islamic republic in Lebanon. Its political stance is anti-West, and it is suspected of involvement in many of the terrorist activities of the 1980s in Lebanon, including kidnappings, bombings, and hijackings. In the 1990s Hizbullah candidates won seats in Lebanon's parliamentary elections. See also Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Hussayn Fadhlallah" (_Encyclopædia Britannica_, 2002).

Bonus definition:

"Hamas (officially _Harakat-al-Muqawima al-Islamiyya_ [Islamic Resistance Movement]): Militant Palestinian Islamic movement dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian Islamic state.

It was founded in 1988 by Sheikh Ahmad Yasin, and its leadership comes from the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas's aims are more militant: it takes the position that Palestine cannot be surrendered to non-Muslims. It opposes the 1993 peace agreement between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel" (_Encyclopædia Britannica_, 2002).

Special thanks to Mr. Joshua for backing me up.

7/21/2006 10:42:44 AM

Hezbollah is an IRANIAN terrorist organization that OPERATES out of Lebanon

they have a few government seats, but moreso they rule over Lebanon with fear

7/21/2006 11:01:00 AM

Maybe some of you are too young to remember the following--but I'm not: "Hizballah was also responsible for another hostage situation targeting Americans--the June 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner during an Athens-Rome flight. The terrorists diverted the plane to Lebanon with its 153 passengers and crew, and murdered U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem, dumping his body onto the Beirut runway."

I remember seeing the sickening sight of that young sailor's body hitting the tarmac like a sack of potatoes--I will NEVER forget it! If it were possible, I would kill those responsible a thousand times over for their wickedness. One day, they will pay.

Don't tell me Hezbollah aren't fucking terrorists.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rdstethe.htm

http://www.stethem.navy.mil/stethem.asp

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 12:10 PM. Reason : Links]

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 12:11 PM. Reason : Links II]

7/21/2006 12:09:00 PM

^liberals like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt...except their own country

7/21/2006 12:12:12 PM

You're fuckin'-A right, bubba!

7/21/2006 12:16:13 PM

wooo hooooo yeee haw muthafucka sheeeeeeeite.

7/21/2006 12:53:06 PM

allah ackbar doop doop doop bush is bad allah ackbar doop doop doop

7/21/2006 12:56:30 PM

Quote :

"Now you're just making unsubstantiated generalizations about what a group of people thought 60 years ago."

Not at all. Policymakers thought the invasion of Kyushu, or maybe even the threat of it, would be enough. And they certainly didn't think it would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives. Looking back, many historians have concluded the Japan would, in fact, have surrendered before the invasion in November.

Quote :

"Only? The actual figure is over 400,000."

I've seen both numbers. Either way, Truman's later numbers would have the invasion of Japan doubling our total losses for WWII. Don't you think that's a bit far-fetched?

Quote :

"25,000? Thats ridiculous."

In June, the Joint Chiefs told Truman that the caulties in the first thirty days of the invasion of Kyushu would not exceed those suffered in capturing Luzon (31,000 killed, wounded, and missing). Another report put total casualties for the Kyushu operation at 132,500 (25,000 fatalities). This report also said the invasion Honshu, if needed, would cause another 21,000 American deaths. So no, the 25,000 number isn't ridiculous. It's a serious military estimate.

Quote :

"The invasion of the small island of Okinawa alone cost 12,500 american lives at the hands of 100,000 japanese defenders. There were ten times that many troops in Kyushu by the fall."

It's all a matter troop quality, morale, and position. All battle weren't the same as Okinawa. Look at how quickly the Japanese folded against the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

Quote :

"So its insane to think that the use of the atomic bomb was justified?"

No, it is insane to make it look as if God himself decended from the heavens and told Truman to do it. You can still argue it was justified quite ably with the numbers from the middle-ground position. It certainly was from political point of view.

Quote :

"Who said that it was a clear choice? It was a total war and use of the bomb was in line with the strategy of every nation involved in the conflict. They could have just as easily destroyed the two cities with firebombing (which was more effective anyway) as they had done with so many others."

Eh, it wouldn't say firebombing was more effective. It required many more planes and thus was harder to organize. Also, as far as I know, only the firebombing of Tokyo was a dramatic as the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But other than that, I agree with you completely. So why the hell do you insist on inflated causalty numbers for the invasion of Kyoshu?

Quote :

"I'm realizing more and more that you have no grasp of the subject."

Right back at ya, bub.

7/21/2006 2:03:44 PM

Quote :

"Policymakers thought the invasion of Kyushu, or maybe even the threat of it, would be enough. And they certainly didn't think it would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives."

Again completely unsubstantiated. Can you find me some diary entries by policy makers where they actually say "The threat of invasion will win the war"? The japanese government was controlled by a military machine whose ideology was in line with bushido's "death before surrender" mentallity. The idea that they would fold without a fight is absurd.

Quote :

"Looking back, many historians have concluded the Japan would, in fact, have surrendered before the invasion in November."

Really? I was a history major whose major focus was WWII. I have never once read such an opinion.

Quote :

"I've seen both numbers."

Both ways? The official number is 407,300. Who ever said that there were 300,000 US casualties in WWII has no business opening their mouth about history.

Quote :

"Either way, Truman's later numbers would have the invasion of Japan doubling our total losses for WWII. Don't you think that's a bit far-fetched?"

No. Most historians don't either.

Quote :

"In June, the Joint Chiefs told Truman that the caulties in the first thirty days of the invasion of Kyushu would not exceed those suffered in capturing Luzon (31,000 killed, wounded, and missing)."

That was in June, before the heavy casualties at Okinawa and before the military had a better understanding of the troop strength on Kyushu. In June they thought that there were one third the actual number of troops as they would believe weeks later. Regardless, your figure is based on the first 30 days of the operations which wouldn't even be enough time to secure the island. Thanks to new defense tactics that the Japanese had adopted over the course of America's island hopping campaign, it took the marines 3 months to secure Okinawa. To put that into perspective, Kyushu has roughly thirty times the land area of Okinawa as well as a much larger indigenous population that would have surely been pressed into defensive combat had the invasion occured.

Quote :

"It's all a matter troop quality, morale, and position. All battle weren't the same as Okinawa. Look at how quickly the Japanese folded against the Soviet invasion of Manchuria."

Okinawa was surely the most representative of what the allies could expect in a full scale invasion of the home islands. A desperate enemy fights harder. The Japanese folded easily in Manchuria for a number of reasons, the biggest being the large number of men, tanks, and aircraft that the Soviets could deploy following the surrender of Germany. The Japanese forces in Manchuria were poorly fortified and spread out over a large area. The Soviets simply rolled in 4,000 tanks backed by 6,000 aircraft, 1.6 million men and a huge amount of artillery and naval support. The Soviets also had vastly superior equipment, material, and military tactics when compared to the Japanese frontier garrisons.

Quote :

"No, it is insane to make it look as if God himself decended from the heavens and told Truman to do it."

Funny. I don't remember ever saying that.

Quote :

"Eh, it wouldn't say firebombing was more effective. It required many more planes and thus was harder to organize."

Developing an atomic bomb was a drain on resources. Its much easier to fill bomb casings with napalm than it is to mine and enrich uranium and spend billions of dollars on research.

Quote :

"Also, as far as I know, only the firebombing of Tokyo was a dramatic as the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe were all firebombed with heavy civilian casualties.

Quote :

"So why the hell do you insist on inflated causalty numbers for the invasion of Kyoshu?"

Your casualty numbers are unrealistically low. Historians agree that it would have taken an invasion of the home islands to bring about surrender in lieu of the bomb. They also agree that such an invasion would have been one of the greatest bloodbaths in human history. To say that the Japanese were ready to surrender without a fight just because the odds weren't looking good for them demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the period.

Its great that you read Hasegawa's book, but one book will hardly give you a full understanding of a period in time.

7/21/2006 3:49:25 PM

Quote :

"Again completely unsubstantiated. Can you find me some diary entries by policy makers where they actually say "The threat of invasion will win the war"?"

Well, on June 4, 1945, Marshall's staff wrote the following to Secretary of War Stimson: "The point in our military progress at which the Japanese will accept defeat and agree to our terms in unpredictable. Probably it will take Russian entry into the war, coupled with a landing, or imminent threat of landing, on Japan proper by us, to convince them of the hopelessness of their position."

So yes, they at least thought the threat of landing might be enough.

Quote :

"The japanese government was controlled by a military machine whose ideology was in line with bushido's "death before surrender" mentallity. The idea that they would fold without a fight is absurd."

No it isn't. The masses weren't nearly as fanatical as some of their leaders were, and they were getting fed up with the war.

Quote :

"Really? I was a history major whose major focus was WWII. I have never once read such an opinion."

Then you have obviously been reading only traditionalist history books. But there are firsts for everyone. I've never heard anyone take that ridiculous ten million figure seriously before.

Quote :

"The official number is 407,300."

Point conceeded. I was probably looking at battle deaths only or something like that.

Quote :

"Who ever said that there were 300,000 US casualties in WWII has no business opening their mouth about history."

You're grasping at straws now, aren't you?

Quote :

"No. Most historians don't either."

Utter bullshit. For example, J. Samuel Walker wrote, "Even if military officals had calculated higher casualty estimates and delivered them to the president in late July, it is inconceivable that the numbers would have totaled in the range of 500,000 to 1 million casualties and/or deaths, given the estimates that were circulating among knowledgeable officials in mid-June." He doesn't buy the higher figures at all.

Quote :

"That was in June, before the heavy casualties at Okinawa and before the military had a better understanding of the troop strength on Kyushu."

So what. See the Walker quote above. Also, Walker wrote the following on the subjet: "Futhermore, the number of Japanese troops disclosed nothing about their combat experience, morale, or the quality of their training, equipment, and leadership. Indications are that they were less formidable than the Japanese forces that defended Okinawa and other islands."

Quote :

"Regardless, your figure is based on the first 30 days of the operations which wouldn't even be enough time to secure the island."

Combined with Soviet entry into the war, that likely would have been more than enough to get Japan to give up. But anyways, that just one number. Others estimates didn't the same time limit.

Quote :

"Developing an atomic bomb was a drain on resources. Its much easier to fill bomb casings with napalm than it is to mine and enrich uranium and spend billions of dollars on research."

I don't get. Are you arguing both that the a-bombs were key in ending the war without an invasion and they were inferior to conventional bombs? Wtf, mate? Assuming you're correct, the conventional bombing would have done just as well.

Quote :

"Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe were all firebombed with heavy civilian casualties."

How many died in each case?

Quote :

"Your casualty numbers are unrealistically low."

You'll have to take that up with the Joint War Plans Committee, bub.

Quote :

"Historians agree that it would have taken an invasion of the home islands to bring about surrender in lieu of the bomb."

That's demonstrably false. If you had bothered to read the article I linked earlier, that would be clear to you.

Here is Walker again: "Nevertheless, by the late 1980s, specialists who studied the available evidence reached a broad, though hardly unanimous, consensus on some key issues surrounding the use of the bomb. One point of agreement was that Truman and his advisers were well aware of alternatives to the bomb that seemed likely, but not certain, to end the war within a relatively short time. Another was that an invasion of Japan would probably not have been neccessary to achieve victory. A third point of general agreement in the scholarly literature on the decision to use the bomb was that the postwar claims that the bomb prevented hundreds of thousands of American combat deaths could not be sustained with the available evidence."

Quote :

"Its great that you read Hasegawa's book, but one book will hardly give you a full understanding of a period in time."

And reading only the traditionalist view with never give a full understanding of any issue.

7/22/2006 3:43:28 AM