WW2 casualties:
China=20.4 mil(15mil civilians)
Russia=40mil(14.6military)
Japan=3.2mil
Germany=7.3mil
Yugo=1.55mil
France=.6mil
Romania=.7mil
Hungary=.750mil
UK=.495mil
USA=.3mil(3k civilians)
i found this:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
i knew Russia lost millions but was surprised that China lost so many people.

 

yes - after Doolittle's raid on Tokyo and then crash-landing in China, the Chinese helped hide them until they made their way back to unoccupied China and were rescued.

Just for doing that, the japanese raped and killed 40 towns - 200,000 murdered just from that 1 incident.

The Japanese were EXTREMELY brutal to the Chinese. Worse than the ***** were to the Jews, if you go by the numbers.

 

Well done Ian. Very few people realize what brutality the Japanese brought to the Chinese prior to and during the USA's involvement in the Pacific theater during WWII. I've often wondered why the Japanese have escaped criticism for their brutality and crimes against humanity while the Germans (most of whom were never ***** and many of those who were ***** or SS were of that persuasion under penalty of death or harm to their families) have been presectuted some 60 years.

The only answer I can come to is that the Japanese earned a reprieve when the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Not to mention they had enough Botulism hidden in Manchuria to kill the world 6 times over.

Gen. Doolittle is my Great Uncle by marriage, by the way.

(His wife is my Grandmother's sister)

I only met him once about 10 years ago. Great man.

Sad part is most people don't know who he is....

 

I know something .... well... best leave that to the imagination...





God knows as a 15 year veteran and still active duty as a Marine, I have learned much about how the military/government is, has been and how "we" can estimate it will be...opposed as well to how the general public views it...

I defend someone's right to the end of the day to think how they want but do not expect me to sit idly by while our people or others are mistreated...it should be everyone's responsibility to help their fellow man, woman or child...regardless of the petty bickering caused by political sensationalism and bias.

so what are you willing to do to really help? by you I mean no one in particiular...but everyone can pose the question to themselves...when in this day we can clean up our own town but refuse to introduce ourselves to our neighbors one house over...let alone internationally.

EVERYONE has something in their heart worth fighting for and possibly giving their life for...something that matters, something only they have to rationalize...not justify...but reacting in a hostile manner toward someone you are not able to later embrace is dysfunctional and counter-productive.





<------getting down now....

 

for the anti-war protestors or people against a war in iraq consider this article with an open mind.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/op...3/23/ixop.html

 

Damn, You beat me to it by ten minutes. Good find

 

I have two brothers in the war right now, and I'm a 2nd Lieutenant in the Air Force...luckily, I didn't get deployed over there, but I hope we get Saddam...!!!

 

This is kind of long, but it was just emailed to me. You know ,yes we live a country were free speach is ok, and everything else that goes along with it, but come on now. I work in NYC and the protest is a block from my office. WTF!!!! People are laying down in the streets to protest a war which thier country's troops are in. SUPPORT THEM! All of these J***OFFS that go and protest will the everyday American is at work during the week, and distrupts everything, GET A JOB!!!!!!!! You all have no frigin lives, but to worry about a country where its ruler kills them. And as far as them thinking that OUR troops are killing civilians, your are WRONG!!! Sadam kills more civilians a day in his country that we will kill, by accident, the entire war.

Well here is the email which i recieved today.

I know everyone has there own views but this is mine....
I did not write this, but it is true

TallTexan's "America Forever"
"Charlie Daniel's' Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK -- Let's just say for a moment you bunch of
pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children
had your way and the USA didn't go into Iraq.
Let's say that you really get your way
and we destroy all our nuclear weapons
nd stick daisies in our gun barrels
and sit around with some white wine and cheese
and pat ourselves on the back,
so proud of what we've done for world peace.
Let's say that we cut the military budget to
just enough to keep the National Guard
on hand to help out with floods and fires.
Let's say that we close down
our military bases all over the world
and bring the troops home,
increase our foreign aid
and drop all the trade sanctions
against everybody.
I suppose that in your fantasy world
this would create a utopian world
where everybody would live in peace.
After all, the great monster,
the United States of America,
the cause of all the world's trouble
would have disbanded it's horrible military
and certainly all the other countries
of the world would follow suit.
After all, they only arm themselves
to defend their countries from the mean old USA

Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical,
idiotic, spoiled mugwumps.
Get your head out of the sand
and smell the Trade Towers burning.
Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn
did anything but encourage a wanton murderer
to think that the people of the USA
didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?
Barbara Streisand's fanatical and hateful rantings
about George Bush makes about as much sense
as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing.
You people need to get out of Hollywood
once in a while and get out into the real world.

You'd be surprised at the hostility you would find out here.
Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked,
long distance truck driver that you don't think
Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong.
Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military
that you think the United States
has no right to defend itself.
Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an antiwar rally
and see what the folks down there think about you.
You people are some of the most disgusting examples
of a waste of protoplasm I've ever
had the displeasure to hear about.
Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America.
You gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
How many American lives will your little,
"fact finding trip" to Iraq cost?
You encouraged Saddam to think
that we didn't have the stomach for war.
You people protect one of the most evil men
on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger
to save the life of an unborn baby.
Freedom of choice you say?
Well I'm going to exercise
some freedom of choice of my own.
If I see any of your names on a marquee,
I'm going to boycott the movie.
I will completely stop going to movies if I have to.
In most cases it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.
You scoff at our military whose boots
you're not even worthy to shine.
They go to battle and risk their lives
so ingrates like you can live in luxury.
The day of reckoning is coming
when you will be faced with the undeniable truth
that the war against Saddam Hussein
is the war on terrorism.
America is in imminent danger.
You're either for her or against her.
There is no middle ground.
I think we all know where you stand.
What do you think?
God Bless America!

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the United States gets about 5% of our oil from Iraq. France gets around 80% of their oil from Iraq. Thats why France isn't siding with the US. I was wondering why some people think that this war is about oil if we only get 5% from Iraq?

 

I posted before that I saw on fox news that France has trillion dollar deals to devlope Iraqi oil fields

 

My comment wasn't directed at you, N34JZ, I'm trying to figure out why people think this war is about oil.

 

Because they are narrow-minded and simplistic idiots who buy into the catchy slogan of, "No blood for oil."

 

If this was all about oil, we wouldn't be attacking Iraq, we'd be kissing their azz.....

 

i heard Iran is next, and if China attacks Taiwan we will nuke them (unlike in Korean war).i say supply nukes to Taiwan and let them defend themselves.

 

hopefully your just kidding, if not I suggest you read the paper or watch the news.

vsidesupratt1: I know I was just restating it and agreeing with you

 

I've heard alot of anti-war people say the following lately:

Well, if we're after Saddam for Weps of Mass Destruction, and the chance they MIGHT have them, then why aren't we in N. Korea, because they DO have them.

Here's the answer:
Saddam Hussein wants to use WMD to gain political blackmail in his own region, get the oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia under his power, and kill any and all who oppose him....ESPECIALLY the USA.

N. Korea wants to use the threat of WMD for food and energy from the Western World in general. They wouldn't dare attack any other countries in the area, because there's a country with not 2, but 2000 Nukes just to their north who have pretty much controlled them since 1953, when they became communists.

Essentially, it's a simple geo-political difference. We let China deal with N. Korea, and they may say alot, but they won't do much. They've been talking like this for 50 years anyway...

Saddam Hussein, if he could get public opinion in the world to believe even for a minute that maybe he just might have some right to use WMD, will gas or nuke others as quick as he can.

Just wanted to make that point.

 

Are you serious? Do you know anything about nuclear war? There is no way we would EVER nuke China. It would be like the cuban missle crisis, but not with Russia, it would be with China. China would definitally retaliate and, bye bye America.

 

Now that's an assumption that you are making, what proof do you have that Saddam intends to use WMD's against anybody? Even if he used them against his neighbors, why is it our job to protect them. Sell arms to the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Israelis and let them fight for themselves, why get Americans killed for others benefit?

My opinions on N. Korea are that Pres. Bush should have gone after them first and then Iraq, since they already have nukes. But then N. Korea wouldn't be defeated in 2 weeks either.

I am not anti-war, just someone who thinks this current war is unjust. I don't mean to flame anyone, just posting my opinions. Peace.

 

That's cool to have your opinions.

For me, the war is really all about helping those who are raped, beaten, tortured, and murdered by this madman's regime daily.

Although there are many sub-points, which I have made, this is the overwhelming one to me...

And to me, and the overwhelming majority of people in the country, that is definately worth fighting and sometimes dying for.

Look at the way their acting in response to this war. Mortars landing on their own people to keep them from escapaing basra - excecution of US soldiers and humiliation of the ones they don't execute on TV.....These people aren't a political party, they are thugs and bandits, and nothing more.

And that is nothing - the 20 years before this war have seen probably over a million Iraqis tortured or killed....Especially the Kurds and Shiites.

But like I said, and like you said, my opinion, your opinion.


There's 2 schools of thought:

1) We are America. We should mind our own business and let the world take care of it's problems because we don't really need to care about the rest of the world militarily because it doesn't directly affect us. Let them solve their own problems.

2) We are America. It is our repsonsibility as the most powerful nation in the world to uphold our beliefs, which we know to be right, around the world and lead the rest of the world to peace and prosperity such as we have experienced.

Neither one is completely wrong or right, I just personally agree more with the latter.....No theology is perfect.

Funny thing is that this is the same argument that has faced us at every war ever, except maybe the Civil War. There were tens of thousands of people in protest of the Spanish/American War (which we started), WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam...etc, etc......especially WWII. You never hear about that on the History Channel.

But isn't it awesome that we can both state our opinions....?

 

Has anyone seen the video of the dead american pow's in Iraq? I downloaded it off of kazaa and it was the most disturbing thing I've seen in a while. Why don't they just return our dead soldiers instead of parading them around.

 

The scariest part is that 2 or 3 of them appear to have been shot in the head at close range.....

I hope they do what they did to Mousellini and his wife to those bastards that did that:

Hang him upside down in the town square and let the Iraqi people go at him them bayonettes and pitchforks.

 

You got that right. God bless America!!!

 

Just to make one final point.

Saddam has used WMD 3 times now. Each time it helped him secure his goals successfully without too much problems from the world community.

That's how we're pretty sure he'd do it again.....if he saw it as something to help him.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks lke a duck - it's a duck.

Another funny thing - maybe someone already said this:
Libya is currently the UN Head for Humanitarianism.
Iraq is currently the UN head for Disarmarment.

Ironic, no?

 

did you think a year ago there will be a war on iraq today, what about september 11?
news?paper?
i predict there will be war with iran in fall 2003 or spring 2004.

 

Actually, there's reasons we don't attack Iran or have any interest in doing so:

1) Iran democratically elected the Ayatolla. We cannot argue with that. It is a democracy, however warped it may be, not a Tyranny like Iraq. They also are not known to be killing off their own people en masse, even if they're extremely strict in their translation of their religion.

2) Iran has never threatened any of it's neighbors, or harmend any other country directly, with the exception of the Iran hostage crisis, which was too long ago to do anything about now. That was before Iran had their current leader, who, believe it or not, is considered moderate to the Ayatolla Khomeni.

So no, we will not be attacking Iran anytime soon, because of the serious risk of being complete hypocrites. The World was hard to sell on this war, they will be even harder to sell on that one.

 

are you trying to say this war is unjust?
where do you live?
calculating coordinates....
patriot battery ready...fire!
you are not patriot man,











thats was bush impersonation

 

That made no sense.

 

I said the world was hard to sell on it because it's not clear cut, not because it's unjust.

But a war against Iran is definately unjust, and the administraiton, while they'd love to do something with Iran, I hope knows better.


As a total non-related point:
And if you think all those countries in the Middle East are the same, I suggest you take some college courses on politics.

Iran HATES Iraq. TOTALLY different political and religious ideas.

 

Yes, you are right he has gassed his own people in 1987. But how come we didn't invade Iraq then and why do people like Bush and Rumsfeld keep bringing up things like this now, 16 years later? This is just an excuse to attack Iraq.

Maybe back then Iraq was our ally and we didn't care how many people Saddam killed. Right after the Gulf war, The U.S. persuaded Shihites and Kurds to turn on Saddam, thousands of them did all over Iraq, but when they needed our help in doing so, we turned our backs on them. Thousands of Shihites were killed by Saddam as we watched and did nothing. Now we are wondering why these same Shihites are not turning on Saddam again. They got screwed by us once and they don't want that to happen again.

Peace and God bless America.

 

- You are wrong here, the Ayatollah is not elected, but appointed from withing the religious groups and he is elected for life. He is the one who really holds the power in Iran. The President is democratically elected and his name is Khatami. He does not hold any real power. He is there just to show the world that Iran is a democracy, when in fact it is not. The same is done in neighboring Pakistan.

- This Ayatollah(I forgot his name) is just as conservative as the original one(Khomaeni). The moderate that you are thinking of is President Khatami, but he hold no real power.

Also Iran fought Iraq for 8 years from 1980 - 1988 and almost beat Iraq, it was because of U.S. giving weapons(some chemical) to Iraq that held the Iranians back from taking Basra in the late 1980's. These are the same weapons that we are accusing Saddam of having now, oh yeah he has them, because we gave them to him.

I think Iran is getting the message without a war that it better change it's policies and stop supporting terrorism or it will be attacked. I heard on the news last night that the Iranian Navy caught an Iraqi speedboat loaded with bombs that was heading towards U.S. Navy ships. So, maybe the Iranians are already helping us.

Peace

 

Yeah, you can thank good ole no-backbone Clinton for that failed insurrection. Man I hated that guy. What a puzzy. Made the whole country look bad, then took all the credit for Congress balancing the budget. "Slick *****" is a true nickname.

Personally, WE DEFINATELY should have been more supportive of that. But Clinton was a moron, as was his whole Administration....so we didn't.

Anyway, I regress.

You ask why we didn't stop iraq back in 1987 - good question.

I shall now answer using reason and fact, unlike your posts, which lack both:

We didn't stop him in 1987 because we knew that another country with nukes pointed at us (Can you say "Soviet Union" - I knew you could.) was using Iran as we were using Iraq to fight each other there.

See - Saddam was smart. He bought Weapons from both the US and Russia at different times which made Russia and the US frustrated (because Saddam was being friendly to both countries), which made both countries dump more money in weapons into the region. This caused saddams Army to be bigger than any other in the Middle East.

When the USSR folded, he invaded Kuwait, knowing the geo-politics were all screwed up in the region because of it, and thinking that noone would stop him.

We used Iraq against Iran. It's called a "Proxy War". Russia would start providing weapons to country A that hated Country B in return for control over their government, or trading for natural resources.

Country A would then attack Country B, to wipe them off the map because of racial, resource, or territorial disputes. This happened on every continent on earth.....Even the North Pole. (Guns were even given to Eskimos)

We had no choice to supply Country B (Iraq) with weapons or else we would have lost the war with Iran and we would have lost thereby the entire region to the USSR, and they would have had all the oil, and their military would have never gone broke, and most likely nuclear haulocaust would have already happened.....And yes, the Cold War was about 2 things: Natural Resources and Political ideas.


Anyhoo -

It's not as simple as "Coulda Woulda Shoulda"

Again - I encourage you to take some classes on not only International politics, but the HISTORY of International Politics.

 

I think before we go any further in discussing this matter, you need to hit the history books. It was not Pres. Clinton, but Pres. Bush Sr that was the President at the end of the first Gulf war in 1991 that all this took place. Clinton didn't come into power until 1992. It was the Bush Sr administration that initially supported the Kurds and Shihites to rise up against Saddam and then turned it's back on them once they started getting killed. Now these same people see another Bush in power and are not so excited about getting their people killed again.

Also you were totally wrong about the political setup in Iran, I have corrected you in another post on that. I urge you again to hit the history books before posting here again.

Peace.

 

The British newspaper the Times revealed last week that a secret Whitehall unit,
a special inter-ministerial Iraq planning unit, has been working for weeks with
the Pentagon to overthrow President Saddam Hussein and install a military
administration. According to the Times, most of the key posts in the future
Iraqi civil service will be held by former American generals, diplomats and aid
workers who "will report directly to the Pentagon". This was confirmed by a news
report in the New York Times on Tuesday, which stated that the US administration
was going ahead with its plans for what it described as "a civil peace-keeping
operation under the direction of Jay Garner, the retired general who directs the
Pentagon's new Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance" and who is
known for his close contacts with Israel's hard line government.

 

The British Times is one of the most liberal papers on the planet. You believe everything you read? If it's secret, how do they know about it? It's SECRET. Governments don't just give info like that away.

Besides, if that were at all true, CNN and MSNBC would be on it like a hooker on a sailor.

Howabout believing this: <Because below is what this is all about>

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.


<I can cut and paste too!>

 

Further, it was Colin Powell who urged Bush Sr. to stop the Gulf War. He said it was turning into a massacre and since the objective of removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait was complete, it was time to pullback, lest the USA be seen as "piling it on" and that "it was becomming a massacre". This decision was, in no small part, influenced by the backlash and concern after the showing of the pictures of, "The Highway of Death". Search for yourself via Google, Yahoo, MSN or whatever your choice is and you'll find the supporting fact from Foxnews.com, ABCNEWS.com, CNN.com, PBS.org and so forth.

I'm no Clinton fan by any stretch of the imagination, but at least ensure your facts are right. It was Bush Sr., accepting the advice of his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that decided not to press onward and ensure "regime change" in 1991.

 

my new prediction is war with iran by end of july/2003 and north korea by march/2004.

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) --
On Friday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned Iran -- a longtime enemy of Iraq -- about the Badr Corps, proxy forces that he said were moving into Iraq, where the United States and coalition forces are waging a war to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime. (Map of region)
Rumsfeld said Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard trains and equips the corps.
"We will hold the Iranian government responsible for their actions and will view Badr Corps activity inside Iraq as unhelpful," he said. "Armed Badr Corps members found in Iraq will have to be treated as combatants."

Any such "proxies" would be viewed as a "potential threat" to coalition forces, Rumsfeld said. (Full story)

The United States, Rumsfeld said, does not want any interference in the military conflict unfolding in Iraq.

"We don't want the conflict prolonged," he said. "And we don't want neighboring countries, or anyone else for that matter, to be in there assisting the Iraqi forces."

 

.
.
.
Mid.<i can think!>
.
.
.
Last.<i can accept, rather try to change people around me>

 

Then why do you keep replying?

 

because its better to reply with words, rather than bombs.