Nonsense. "Freedom fighters" do not purposely target innocent men, women and children for slaughter to make political points. Only TERRORISTS do.

How does that compare with Big Boy and Little Boy then?

Da Da Da Da DaDaDaa Da, Daa Da da da da da daa

SC

There is no comparison. They were not targeting civilians which is exactly what terrorist do. There were military targets that they were after and back then, there was no way to avoid lots of civilian casualties when bombing cities.

I suggest you Yank haters read up on a little history of WWII and then guess how many casualties on both sides would have been involved in an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

In the state of knowledge at the time, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was probably the right thing to do. Nobody would have been half as worried about nuclear weapons if they had not been actually used.

As an Englishman, I also fully realise that without the Yanks England would have been beaten; people of my generation will always be immensely grateful. That doesn't mean we want it rammed down our throats, or to be treated as has-beens (even if we are!).

I suggest you Yank haters read up on a little history of WWII and then guess how many casualties on both sides would have been involved in an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

In the state of knowledge at the time, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was probably the right thing to do. Nobody would have been half as worried about nuclear weapons if they had not been actually used.

As an Englishman, I also fully realise that without the Yanks England would have been beaten; people of my generation will always be immensely grateful. That doesn't mean we want it rammed down our throats, or to be treated as has-beens (even if we are!).

I certainly hope you don't think my post was an attempt to ram anything down your throat. I am fully aware of the contribution all sides made in the war to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese. We have stood beside each other many times and likely will face more adversaries together as time goes on.

I simply see no purpose in some remarks made from time to time about the use of nukes in 1945. They saved many more lives than they took by shortening the war and keeping Russia on the sidelines while Europe and the Japanese nation were rebuilt.

I trust you were not offended or hurt by the

"Da Da Da Da DaDaDaa Da, Daa Da da da da da daa"

Don't worry. It just seemed silly in a post about nukes, so I did not pay it much attention.

I trust you were not offended or hurt by the

"Da Da Da Da DaDaDaa Da, Daa Da da da da da daa"

Don't worry. It just seemed silly in a post about nukes, so I did not pay it much attention.

I don't see why the dambusters theme would offend you.

Naam, on the other hand, may well bear some familial resentment to the glorification thereof

SC

You were probably getting it confused with the Archers

De de De de De de dee deedle de deedle de dee

I don't see why the dambusters theme would offend you.

Naam, on the other hand, may well bear some familial resentment to the glorification thereof

When I was serving at RAF Leuchars it was with an air/sea rescue squadron. The aircrew were WWII vintage, Czechs and Poles, who had served with the Dambusters and similar squadrons.

Their way of practice had been to find a convenient railway embankment, fly lower and lower, releasing dummy bombs, until the bomb bounced up and hit the aircraft. That was conidered too low.

One inflammatory post removed also quoted replies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17879744

Yuval Diskin, ex-chief of Shin bet, has spoken out against suggestions of a pre-emptive strike against iran.

It seems Netanyahu does not have full support from his own Government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-17879744

Yuval Diskin, ex-chief of Shin bet, has spoken out against suggestions of a pre-emptive strike against iran.

It seems Netanyahu does not have full support from his own Government.

"I don't believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings," he said at a public meeting.

Smart Man

It seems Netanyahu does not have full support from his own Government.

What democratic leader does?

The Soviet Union and the Great Purge, Syria, China and the Great Leap Forward, Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and all against their own people. There is plenty of blame to go around, but Iran is the biggest sponsor of state sponsored terrorism in the world and certainly should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Did you actually understand my post, just asking politely?

I guess it depends on your views of state sponsored terrorism, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan 1979-1989, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan 2001- ongoing

Oh yeah my Girlfriend is Different

I am not saying people do not have a right to defend themselves, of course they do, but if they want to be considered civilised, then act civilised, which ever culture that might be, I include all countries in that.

all countries? even the Greatest Nation on Earth™? how dare you Moss?!

p.s. missing in your list is Korea 1950, Guatemala 1954, El Salvador 1960, Bahia de los Cochinos 1961, Dominican Republic 1963, Chile 1973, Panama 1989.

Crikey, I am still young and handsome, Korea 1950 wow, however I do remember Panama, now there was a hill!!

The taking out of bin Laden on the territory of a supposedly friendly nation was a terrorist act, however much all of us may be glad that bin Laden is no more.

Certain factions may have given him sanctuary, but were they the only one's to feed him weapon?

Don't forget Sudetenland in 1938, Czechoslovakia & Poland in 1939, soon followed by more than a dozen more.

That was for Lebensraum and had been a perfectly legitimate reason in days of yore.

Billy the Conk did it be invading the peaceful Anglo-Saxon nation of England, for instance, and the Chinese will probably do it to Siberia in the not-to-distant future. If they don't occupy Africa instead.

Either move will gain them a lot of oil and gas, which would hopefully reduce the prices from other suppliers to the rest of the world.

The Conk believed he had a legitamate reason, as do the Chinese over Tibet, I guess we all have our views on both.

we call terrorists freedom fighters and freedom fighters terrorists when it suits us. and after a while, when it suits us, we are awarding Nobel Peace Prizes to those we called terrorists

Exactly

I have edited this post but only in regard to the point I was responding to.

But I think we can agree, no Nobel Peace Prize for Netanyahu or Ahmedinajab.

Yeah, I can agree with that statement, but we will be giving one to Mandela or McGuinness soon enough

Nonsense. "Freedom fighters" do not purposely target innocent men, women and children for slaughter to make political points. Only TERRORISTS do.

Are you sure?

I already know your answer, but explain the Dresden bombing to me then

The answer to Hiroshima and Nagasaki are more complex, but were they targetting civillian areas, probably, were they trying to exercise their power in the casualties caused, may be the lesser evil in invading and causing far more casualties on both sides.

Remember, because of certain ideals, the Japanese were not even considering surrendering, casualties of an invasion including non-nuclear bombing of a defenceless sky would have been high, ground troops and civilians even higher, if I had to make the decision, I am not sure of my response, but probably the Green Light to Fat Boy.

Whatever my response, it would have been more reasoned than quote 'bombs away', unquote.

I suggest you Yank haters read up on a little history of WWII and then guess how many casualties on both sides would have been involved in an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

In the state of knowledge at the time, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was probably the right thing to do. Nobody would have been half as worried about nuclear weapons if they had not been actually used.

As an Englishman, I also fully realise that without the Yanks England would have been beaten; people of my generation will always be immensely grateful. That doesn't mean we want it rammed down our throats, or to be treated as has-beens (even if we are!).

Never mind the Irish, Scots and Welsh and Dependencies

Chuck

I can't find your post, but take out the Yank Haters bit and I agree with your snippet above

Nonsense. "Freedom fighters" do not purposely target innocent men, women and children for slaughter to make political points. Only TERRORISTS do.

Are you sure?

I already know your answer, but explain the Dresden bombing to me then

Dresden had factories producing weapons and war equipment. and was a rail base for sending soldiers to the front. One official reason for bombing it was to stop it from being used by Nazi troops to advance on the Allies.

If you are implying that part of the reason for bombing it was revenge for what the Nazis had done to other cities, I would agree, but it was a legitimate military target and wars were fought differently back then.

Dresden was surely a rail centre for the Eastern front - Hamburg would have had much more relevnce for the West.

Was the bombing of Dresden before or after the bombing of London?

Was the bombing of Dresden before or after the bombing of London?

After - long time after.

London blitz was 1940/1 (I was bombed out at that time), Dresden was either 1944 or 45.

Was the bombing of Dresden before or after the bombing of London?

After - long time after.

London blitz was 1940/1 (I was bombed out at that time), Dresden was either 1944 or 45.

My point, exactly.

Nonsense. "Freedom fighters" do not purposely target innocent men, women and children for slaughter to make political points. Only TERRORISTS do.

Are you sure?

I already know your answer, but explain the Dresden bombing to me then

Dresden had factories producing weapons and war equipment. and was a rail base for sending soldiers to the front. One official reason for bombing it was to stop it from being used by Nazi troops to advance on the Allies.

If you are implying that part of the reason for bombing it was revenge for what the Nazis had done to other cities, I would agree, but it was a legitimate military target and wars were fought differently back then.

One might ask why it had been left completely free of bombing up until a couple of months before the end, or did this action lead to the total destruction of both fronts? And I was not implying anything in regard to revenge, but more likely a statement to the Soviets. If it had important factories, it would have been targeted long before.

Dresden was surely a rail centre for the Eastern front - Hamburg would have had much more relevnce for the West.

Yes it was Humph, Eastern direction, not a rail threat to the West.

Hamburg was the earlier fire-storm bombing by the RAF, Dresden was very late in the war and was again carried out by Bomber Command of the RAF - ordered by 'Bomber' Harris without instruction from either Churchill (his political boss) or Eisenhower (his military boss).

Much earlier in the war - 1940/41 - my father was coming home from Liverpool. After coming past Manchester everyone was looking at a glow in the sky - thinking that Birmingham was being bombed. After Birminghamit was suggested that it was Coventry, then Rugby. It was only when he got home that he found out we were sitting in the middle of it - in London.

Remember that the London Blitz wen on for about nine months, whereas the Hamburg and Dresden fire-storms, terrible as they were, were of less than a week each.

Dresden, located in the middle of Germany,

was a rail base for sending soldiers to the front... used by Nazi troops to advance on the Allies

a couple of months before the war ended and every able man down to the age of 17 was already fighting either on the east (Red Army at Breslau/Wroclav 140mi from Dresden) or on the west front (Ardennen offensive)?

But I think we can agree, no Nobel Peace Prize for Netanyahu or Ahmedinajab.

Yeah, I can agree with that statement, but we will be giving one to Mandela or McGuinness soon enough

Nelson Mandela got the Nobel Peace Prize 19 years ago in 1993.

Dresden, located in the middle of Germany,

was a rail base for sending soldiers to the front... used by Nazi troops to advance on the Allies

a couple of months before the war ended and every able man down to the age of 17 was already fighting either on the east (Red Army at Breslau/Wroclav 140mi from Dresden) or on the west front (Ardennen offensive)?

We know all that 67 years later, but it was not so clear at the time. Dresden was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort and a legitimate military target.