"Obama must choose - Israel or Iran"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

the difference is that is the nation of Israel deosn't agree with the government, it will replace it in the next election.

Maybe, maybe not. That a citizen votes for a candidate does not imply that the citizen agrees with every policy the candidate supports. At any rate, it is an irrelevant point w/r/t my initial post in the thread.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[sebcat 0]

Not a re: to JohnDeere.

In the '50s, some guy (the prime minister of Iran) decides that it's a good idea to nationalize their oil reserves. Britain does not approve and why should they? After all, it's British oil, right?. A coup d'état is staged by the CIA, Operation Ajax. British approved and assisted. The government is overthrown and Iran is no longer a democracy. The CIA killed democracy in Iran. The Shah is the boss in charge now and he doesn't answer to anyone. He likes the US so no problem. Fast forward a couple of years and you've got the 1979 revolution, this time by Khomeini and his pals. But hey, now US got a new friend in the region, Saddam. Dam tam tam. It's like a bad soap opera.

I find it ironic when e.g. a president of the US (today, he's an ex-president) criticize Iran's lack of democracy. But then again, he didn't have anything to do with that, at the time of operation ajax he was just a small kid and at the time of the Islamic Revolution, he was just an oil guy. Arbusto and all that.

As for Israel, they played out the "we're only defending ourselves!"-card a long time ago.

So if I was the guy in charge on the other side of the atlantic ocean, I would not care about the comments made by the Iranian prime minister that much. It's meant for the folks back home. Blame the americans, blame the jews, blame the muslims (oops, don't do that!), blame the rich, blame the poor, just blame someone, it's politics. Now, since '79, the united states has been blamed for a lot of things and I doubt they'll change that anytime soon.

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

I have no desire to be the pres of the US.

Quote

You're sure quick to attack posters here, but you're kind of slow at actually addressing the point of the thread. I'll just put you down as: "has no answer".

That's the same as voting "present". Oh wait, Obama did that all his career as an Illinois Senator. Maybe that's why we haven't seen him come up with any kind of decision with additional troops for the past 3 months. Conclusively he will will side step with Iran & Israel too.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[rhys 0]

Quote

If you were the U.S. President, presented with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's choice of "Israel or Iran", what would be your response to him?

Hold the 9/11 trial on american soil, expose the truth, hang the neo cons by their scrotum, withdraw troops and pursue peace, though mutual respect.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

If you were the U.S. President, presented with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's choice of "Israel or Iran", what would be your response to him?

Hold the 9/11 trial on american soil, expose the truth, hang the neo cons by their scrotum, withdraw troops and pursue peace, though mutual respect.

Where is the new evidence and the truth of the 9/11 conspiracy that you previously claimed would be coming out in October of this year? Well actually you claimed it would come out in September but then you revised that. Time to revise it again?

[billvon 2,991]

> I would nuke Iran before I would raise a fist to Israel.


=================
Word of Warning: Enola Gay navigator says people should be educated on nuclear war

Albuquerque Journal

Oct. 24--Ted "Dutch" Van Kirk has as little patience for people who think the United States should "nuke" its enemies as he has for people who question the bombing of Hiroshima almost 65 years ago.

Van Kirk was navigator on the Enola Gay when the B-29 Superfortress' crew dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima the morning of Aug. 6, 1945. He still believes that, given the circumstances at the time, dropping the bomb was the right thing to do.

But during a Friday tour of the new National Museum of Nuclear Science & History with a handful of original members of the once topsecret 509th Composite Group, Van Kirk said he hopes the world has learned its lesson about nuclear weapons.

"You know, you get all these people that go around saying things like, with Iraq, 'We ought to go and nuke those bastards,' said Van Kirk, a spry 88. "They don't know what they're talking about. They have no idea what a nuclear bomb is."
====================

[shropshire 0]

Why? Why must he choose one or the other. The world isn't that black & white. Deplomacy can would in multiple theatres simultaneously, can't it?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 4]

Quote

Why? Why must he choose one or the other.

Because for some people, everything is either black or white and there are no shades of grey. Every issue is reduced to either 100% "for us" or 100% "against us." Even if at times a group could help you, if they aren't 100% devoted to your cause, then they must be the enemy 100% of the time.

I simply will never understand that sort of thinking.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[shropshire 0]

That's a group of 2 of us then ...... so far.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Why? Why must he choose one or the other. The world isn't that black & white. Deplomacy can would in multiple theatres simultaneously, can't it?

The more fundamentalist and dogmatic amoung us just cant accept shades of grey. They are the ones who believe since they are the ones wearing the white cowboy hats... that they must be the good ones...irrespective of evidence to the contrary.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Why? Why must he choose one or the other. The world isn't that black & white. Diplomacy can would (work?) in multiple theatres simultaneously, can't it?

Of course it can, if people are willing. But that's not a choice that MaMoose is offering.

So, you have this choice:

1) Israel is willing to work for peace, and is not threatening to annihilate anyone, and;
2) Iran publicly threatens to annihilate Israel, and is unwilling to work for peace.

The choice therefore is obvious. You vote against the party who is intractable.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

=================
Word of Warning: Enola Gay navigator says people should be educated on nuclear war

"You know, you get all these people that go around saying things like, with Iraq, 'We ought to go and nuke those bastards,' said Van Kirk, a spry 88. "They don't know what they're talking about. They have no idea what a nuclear bomb is."
====================

What's your point, exactly? His having dropped a bomb does not actually qualify him any more than anyone else on the subject. He didn't see the effects any more than the crews that fire bombed Tokyo. And the bomb he dropped doesn't compare with the ones that exist now.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

=================
Word of Warning: Enola Gay navigator says people should be educated on nuclear war

"You know, you get all these people that go around saying things like, with Iraq, 'We ought to go and nuke those bastards,' said Van Kirk, a spry 88. "They don't know what they're talking about. They have no idea what a nuclear bomb is."
====================

What's your point, exactly? His having dropped a bomb does not actually qualify him any more than anyone else on the subject. He didn't see the effects any more than the crews that fire bombed Tokyo. And the bomb he dropped doesn't compare with the ones that exist now.

Want to bet that the crews that dropped those weapons... might have had a few nightmares about the bombs?

Conscience can do some interesting things even IF you know you did the right thing at the time. What IF's suck big time.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

What's your point, exactly? His having dropped a bomb does not actually qualify him any more than anyone else on the subject. He didn't see the effects any more than the crews that fire bombed Tokyo. And the bomb he dropped doesn't compare with the ones that exist now.

Want to bet that the crews that dropped those weapons... might have had a few nightmares about the bombs?

Conscience can do some interesting things even IF you know you did the right thing at the time. What IF's suck big time.

Oh, I don't doubt that for a minute. I imagine most people have regret at killing others, even when fully justified. If you didn't...

But he's arguing that nukes are different from other forms of killing, and his experience doesn't really qualify him as authoritative on the question.

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . and his experience doesn't really qualify him as authoritative on the question.

More so than you or I.

After all, he was the navigator on the plane. It must have occurred to him over the course of the flight that he was an integral part of the process. If he had wanted to, he could have intentionally avoided the intended target.

You nor I have never been in the position to directly stop the dropping of an atomic weapon.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

. . . and his experience doesn't really qualify him as authoritative on the question.

More so than you or I.

Why are you truncating the first half of my sentence? By deliberately ignoring it, you get to change the question. Lame.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

. . . and his experience doesn't really qualify him as authoritative on the question.

More so than you or I.

Why are you truncating the first half of my sentence? By deliberately ignoring it, you get to change the question. Lame.

I'll tack it back on if you like. It doesn't change the question at all.

There is a vast difference between killing a single person at a military target and thousands of others that some might simply call collateral damage. A person that has been in a direct line of responsibility and especially one that has probably thought about it every day of his life for the last 50 years, in my opinion, is more qualified to discuss the topic than you or I with regards to its moral implications.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Skyrad 0]

I support diplomacy. No one starts in any negotiation showing their cards and standing in the middle ground. Obama (et al) job is to do those hard yeards to mve them into that posistion to find a resolution. Therefore your options are without value.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

News:

"Obama must choose - Israel or Iran"

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the US to choose between Israel and Iran on Tuesday night, according to Iranian state media. Ahmadinejad said that for a real change in relations to take place, a choice must be made. The Iranian president said that it was up to US President Barack Obama to illustrate his motto of 'Change.' 'The support of both Israel and Iran can't go hand in hand,' he was quoted as saying..."

Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1257770037656&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Who would you choose to support: Israel, or Iran?

I choose Israel because (1) they have outlasted the opposition throughout the centuries. (2)They also hold a major trump card. (3)I am an adopted Jew.

An adopted Jew? What do you mean?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

. . . and his experience doesn't really qualify him as authoritative on the question.

More so than you or I.

After all, he was the navigator on the plane. It must have occurred to him over the course of the flight that he was an integral part of the process. If he had wanted to, he could have intentionally avoided the intended target.

You nor I have never been in the position to directly stop the dropping of an atomic weapon.

Correct me if I am wrong.. but I think at that time the nav was the one who actually took control of the aircraft and was responsible for sighting the bomb sight and the release of the bomb.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Why are you truncating the first half of my sentence? By deliberately ignoring it, you get to change the question. Lame.

I'll tack it back on if you like. It doesn't change the question at all.

There is a vast difference between killing a single person at a military target and thousands of others that some might simply call collateral damage. A person that has been in a direct line of responsibility and especially one that has probably thought about it every day of his life for the last 50 years, in my opinion, is more qualified to discuss the topic than you or I with regards to its moral implications.

It absolutely changes the question. You're addressing the issue of feeling responsibility of directly killing thousands of people. Yes, he did that. So did thousands of other pilots in WWII.

That does not address at all the difference between using a nuclear weapon to do it, or a lot of conventional weapons in a carpet bombing attack, night after night.

Amazon - I believe you're correct in thinking that the navigator executes the bombing run. Though if this person refused to do his duty, others on board could take his place. This particular attack did not require the same sort of accuracy.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why are you truncating the first half of my sentence? By deliberately ignoring it, you get to change the question. Lame.

I'll tack it back on if you like. It doesn't change the question at all.

There is a vast difference between killing a single person at a military target and thousands of others that some might simply call collateral damage. A person that has been in a direct line of responsibility and especially one that has probably thought about it every day of his life for the last 50 years, in my opinion, is more qualified to discuss the topic than you or I with regards to its moral implications.

It absolutely changes the question. You're addressing the issue of feeling responsibility of directly killing thousands of people. Yes, he did that. So did thousands of other pilots in WWII.

That does not address at all the difference between using a nuclear weapon to do it, or a lot of conventional weapons in a carpet bombing attack, night after night.

Amazon - I believe you're correct in thinking that the navigator executes the bombing run. Though if this person refused to do his duty, others on board could take his place. This particular attack did not require the same sort of accuracy.

I was thinking that was the case on the B-29 that the actual bomb run was controlled from the Norden Bomb sight which was tied into the autopilot.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

. . . and his experience doesn't really qualify him as authoritative on the question.

More so than you or I.
After all, he was the navigator on the plane. It must have occurred to him over the course of the flight that he was an integral part of the process. If he had wanted to, he could have intentionally avoided the intended target.
You nor I have never been in the position to directly stop the dropping of an atomic weapon.

Correct me if I am wrong.. but I think at that time the nav was the one who actually took control of the aircraft and was responsible for sighting the bomb sight and the release of the bomb.

Tthe bomb was sighted by Thomas Ferebee, the bombardier, using a Norden bombsight. The Norden bombsight itself is flying the airplane on bomb run much like an autopilot (the pilot doesn't have his hands on the controls), but the bombardier is aiming the bomb sight. This also requires knowledge of winds aloft and estimated winds at various altitudes just like spotting a jump run. He'd get that information from various sources, but among them is the navigator.

That said, the aircraft doesn't get to bomb run in this case without its escort aircraft and it doesn't get to the escort aircraft at all if the navigator doesn't put it at the rendezvous point.

I might be wrong, but I think it was entirely within the abilities of the navigator to miss the rendezvous point and have the aircraft lost at sea in the leg flown between Tinian and Iwo Jima.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I support diplomacy. No one starts in any negotiation showing their cards and standing in the middle ground. Obama (et al) job is to do those hard yeards to mve them into that posistion to find a resolution. Therefore your options are without value.

They are not MY options - they are Achmedjibberjabber's options.

[billvon 2,991]

> His having dropped a bomb does not actually qualify him any more
> than anyone else on the subject.

Being trained on how to drop nuclear bombs on cities - and then actually dropping nuclear bombs on cities - does indeed qualify him to be able to speak about whether "nuking those bastards" is a foolish statement for most people to make.

Do you think being trained to do tandems, and then actually taking tandem students, qualifies people to more accurately judge the risks associated with tandem skydiving? Or are they no better than whuffos when it comes to such things? After all, most tandem masters have never died or seen any other tandem master or student die.

> And the bomb he dropped doesn't compare with the ones that exist now.

Right. Nor do the airplanes compare, or the radios, or the issues of nuclear proliferation. But his experience in dropping nuclear bombs on cities is still valid.