Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[McLaren]

First topic message reminder :

Not had that much fun watching football for a while.

Robben taken the p*1ss out the spanish keeper and central defenders was literally hilarious.

[super_realist]

Over-rated. The Beatles.

[incontinentia]

Bit sneaky to use the bomb on civilians though navy don't you think?

[Diggers]

Seem to remember you getting upset about people convicting Saville without a trial Navy, you seem happy enough to do it to Blair though?
Not that I think you are wrong, but the  again Id call the Japan A bombings war crimes, the UK gave complete support to those attacks pushed by Churchill.

Savile and Blair aren't really comparable are they but I take your point. I wouldn't suggest Blair goes to jail w/o passing 'Go' having not been tried. Get him in front of the Hague. More than happy to see that happen!
The A-bombs aren't really a good example are they? They were w/o precedent and the research was so secret even Tibbets(sp?), the Enola Gay's pilot, didn't know what they were dropping. Even Leonard Cheshire, on the Enola Gay (I think) as an observer, was taken aback by the actual explosion. The fact they've never been used aggressively since suggests people reassessed their impact post-WW2. I can see the point but I more than see the point of the U.S. who, basically, said "Why should we lose hundreds of thousands of men taking all the Japanese islands and their mainland in conventional fashion when we can simply drop some game-changing bombs?". If they'd invaded conventionally, the same (almost certainly more) Japanese would have died and, in addition, you'd have huge numbers of allied troops dying as well.
In addition, you're taking the 1945 situation out of context. You can't look back through today's lens and say such-and-such is a war crime. The rules have changed and I don't think it's easy to put oneself in the position of those that had had to put up with ~6 years of total war from back then. In addition, Japan's and Nazi Germany's war had levels of barbarism not commonly seen before or on such scale during conventional warfare.

I think you are wrong about japan, a ground war would not have happened IMO, the country was out on its feet and close to surrender. In Churchill's memoirs he writes that he knew by 1945 that the soviets had replaced the Nazis as the real threat and he pushed this theory to Truman.
The bombings were a reaction to this, defining a new world order with America flexing its atomic muscles. I don't think that not knowing the consequences (they had a very good idea they would be very bad) lets anyone of the hook.
At the end of the day my point is that both men probably believed in their actions. I think intervention in Iraq was needed but not by Blair and Bush's means which as you say were most likely illegal. However I don't remotely think the A bombs were necessary so if Im using my own moral compass I think they were a far worse action and one that Churchill was complicit in.
However history will take a very different view I'm sure.

[super_realist]

Bit sneaky to use the bomb on civilians though navy don't you think?

There was loads of bombing on civilians from both sides throughout the war Inco. Not just the two A-Bombs.

[navyblueshorts]

Bit sneaky to use the bomb on civilians though navy don't you think?

And? As S_R points out, it was pretty much de rigeur back then. That's what we don't seem to understand these days - war kills people. The idea that you can have some sort of 'smart' weapons that don't kill innocents is farcical. I think the decision makers (Truman etc) would have considered than the thousand of Japanese victims of both bombs was, on balance, a price worth paying.
I don't think that the Allies, at that time, were remotely considerate of the fact that the mainland Japanese populace were of a different opinion to their military. You're looking at things through a 2014 perspective I'm afraid.

Digs

I don't think there's much serious consensus that an invasion of Japan wasn't going to be needed. I'm sure you're right to some extent re. America flexing its atomic muscles cf. the USSR. I'm not that fussed anymore as it's history and, fortunately, they haven't been used in anger since. Atomic weapons or conventional - it's all death. Politicians are too free and easy to commit their militaries to a conflict and then have the temerity to wring their hands about it afterwards.

[Diggers]

Really, i think the consensus these days is the reverse and that an invasion was never likely to be necessary or indeed required. We are clearly reading different historians opinions.
What happened 10 minutes ago is history, we should still look at what happened and try and learn from it.
Totally agree with your last point though. But the world is in one hell of a mess right now, intervention doesn't work, non intervention doesn't seem to work either. I wouldn't like to be in Cameron's or Obamas shoes right now as they will have people from all sides screaming opinions at them, ultimately probably all as equally worthless as the others.

[super_realist]

British "rent a jihad".
What do we do about them?

[incontinentia]

I thought war is when you try and kill combatants and not civilians? Hiroshima wasn't on the front-line navy. People get killed during war sometimes unfortunately when one side has to bomb the infrastructure in a city e.g. bombing of Baghdad 2003. Hiroshima was more like terrorism.

[super_realist]

Inco, Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't really any different from the WW2 bombing of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Coventry,  Dresden or Cologne

The sinking of the Hydro in Rjuken in Norway wasn't intended to kill civilians, but it did and it was accepted it might be an outcome.

[kwinigolfer]

inco,
Why did "one side (have) to bomb . . . . . Baghdad 2003".

Terrorism dressed up as warfare - not surprising that that part of the world has renewed reasons for despising the US and UK. As I've had a family member (50-y-o g'mother) killed as collateral damage in wartime bombing, I think you're mixing apples and oranges.

[Diggers]

The difference is the other mass bombings were at the start of tbe war and during times when an advantage was needed.
The A bombs came when victory was as good as won, they weren't for a strategic gain. They were making a statement of fear.
They were disgusting acts of extreme violence for which the Allies should be ashamed IMO. A dark day in history.

[Diggers]

There has to be a serious threat to justify loss of life on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was no threat, if the best excuse is it was a quick fix (highly debatable if needed) then that's just not good enough.

[super_realist]

Diggers, You do know the British bombed Dresden in the final months of the war when the Nazi's were already well and truly beaten don't you?

[Diggers]

That was a disgrace as well but it was in theory a military target and the war on Europe was a much closer geographical fight obviously. The Germans still posed an air threat to England. Japan posed no real threat.
Dresden was bad but not to the scale of the A bombs.

[incontinentia]

super- Hitler wasn't big on following the rules of war, his actions can't be deemed standard wartime practice. The bombing of Dresden has been widely condemned.

Kwin- weren't the U.S. trying to disable Saddam's defences? definitely wasn't to kill innocents.

[super_realist]

That was a disgrace as well but it was in theory a military target and the war on Europe was a much closer geographical fight obviously. The Germans still posed an air threat to England. Japan posed no real threat.
Dresden was bad but not to the scale of the A bombs.

90% of the city was destroyed. There was no aerial threat from Germany at that time. The Luftwaffe was finished well before then, ineffective as of Jan 45 and only sporadic V2 launches happened around the same time as Dresden

That's not to say Dresden wasn't horrible or could be justified, or that the bombings in the UK weren't also indiscriminate and ghastly, that was the nature of ww2 bombing, only a small % of bombs fell within 5 miles of the target, "collateral" damage was expected. Just that it's stupid to isolate the A-bombs as being the worst act when the whole war was littered with similar examples.

[Diggers]

It's far from stupid, Dresden would have suffered far more if an A bomb had been dropped on it. And the geography of the situation does matter, you can't ignore it. Sporadic or not the air threat was there and a final throw of the dice was still feared.
I agree that the were many acts but not to highlight the A bombs as the most horrific and unnecessary act of the West is stupid to me.

[super_realist]

My point Diggers, was that Dresden was similar to Japan in a great many ways, so whoever isolated Japan as being the only example of "ungentlemanly" or "unsporting" bombing in WW2 is to be ignorant of the history.

The outcome in terms of casualties might have been worse in Japan, but the intent was the same.

[Diggers]

I get your point but it doesn't alter the fact that the A bombs did take more life's, were a bigger act of atrocity and I would say far more unnecessary. Therefore all in all much worse and deserving of highlighting.

[super_realist]

I get your point but it doesn't alter the fact that the A bombs did take more life's, were a bigger act of atrocity and I would say far more unnecessary. Therefore all in all much worse and deserving of highlighting.

I think both were unnecessary. Both countries were on their knees at the time.
Dresden was beautiful too, real waste.

[Diggers]

Anyway, it all adds to my original theory that Churchill was a bit if a ruthless Cnut.

[kwinigolfer]

inco,
My point was that the US had no justification for being in Iraq, none whatsoever. Totally trumped (unfortunate choice of word, apologies, the Donald wouldn't be able to spell Iraq, let alone know where it is) up political stunt from Cheney, Wolfowitz and Bush. War criminals of the first order.

[Diggers]

Super, imagine how beautiful Europe would be without the 20th century wars, beautiful towns like Sienna would be the norm.
Some of the real war criminals were the town planners who rebuilt after the conflicts.

[kwinigolfer]

"real war criminals were town planners".
Ha! You've obviously spent some time in Portsmouth then Digs!

[incontinentia]

I agree kwini that the war in Iraq was an illegal one, but in the context of what we're talking about, i.e. whether certain bombings were justified, the Baghdad bombings at least were made against military targets. Whereas Hiroshima/Nagasaki seem like cheap shots against a civilian population.

[Diggers]

More like 3 years at Uni (OK Poly) in Coventry Kwini.
No wonder the Specials wrote Ghost Town about it.
That said still probably the best 3 years of my life so hey ho.

[super_realist]

Super, imagine how beautiful Europe would be without the 20th century wars, beautiful towns like Sienna would be the norm.
Some  of the real war criminals were the town planners who rebuilt after the conflicts.

British planners from many periods, not just pre-war were terrible. SOme of the stuff from the 70's, 80's and 90's were awful.
Europe rebuilt far more tastefully.

[Diggers]

Shame nobody showed the French how to build a pretty ski resort. In fact a lot of recent French architecture is pretty crap, lots of dull, generic towns.

[super_realist]

Very true Diggers, even the "nicer" French resorts still look like SLough.
I never go to France anymore, partly because the resorts are grim, even the posh one.
France is actually very over-rated.

Austrian resorts are incredibly pretty.

[Diggers]

Austria is lovely, great food as well, best mixed grills in the world!

[super_realist]

Austria is lovely, great food as well, best mixed grills in the world!

Much much cheaper than French ski resorts too and lifts that work

[navyblueshorts]

I thought war is when you try and kill combatants and not civilians? Hiroshima wasn't on the front-line navy. People get killed during war sometimes unfortunately when one side has to bomb the infrastructure in a city e.g. bombing of Baghdad 2003. Hiroshima was more like terrorism.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exemplary. In addition, they were chosen because of significant military industrial infrastructure in those areas and because they had military bases nearby as well. You could call it terrorism, yes. It worked. The allies and particularly the U.S. had had enough and weren't prepared to lose more of their own. Understandable.

[navyblueshorts]

There has to be a serious threat to justify loss of life on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was no threat, if the best excuse is it was a quick fix (highly debatable if needed) then that's just not good enough.

Yes, there was. You try telling that to the U.S. troops who'd have had to clear out the other islands and the mainland. The Japanese were asked several times to surrender before they were dropped. They didn't and the U.S. wasn't going to lose any more. Once again, you can't apply today's morals to that time or, at least, if you do, it's hardly a reasonable thing to do. I also don't think you're particularly justified in judging those who'd had to endure what they did from '39 to '45. They'd had enough.

[Diggers]

Well I'm sure Al Qaeda had enough of the west interfering in Islamic States therefore 9/11 is perfectly justifiable?
I dont really get your logic as to why I can't apply today's morals to so thing that happened in 1945. We were supposedly a civilised democracy then as we are now, decisions made had consequences then as they do now.
Re people having enough, there wasn't a referendum as to whether to bomb, it was a political and military decision (like Iraq). I don't think the morale of the Allied citizens particularly came into it. Probably far more of a financial consideration if anything.

[incontinentia]

Suspected case of Ebola in Ireland  

[Diggers]

You'd have to think a huge pandemic is just a matter of time.

[navyblueshorts]

Well I'm sure Al Qaeda had enough of the west interfering in Islamic States therefore 9/11 is perfectly justifiable?
I dont really get your logic as to why I can't apply today's morals to so thing that happened in 1945. We were supposedly a civilised democracy then as we are now, decisions made had consequences then as they do now.
Re people having enough, there wasn't a referendum as to whether to bomb, it was a political and military decision (like Iraq). I don't think the morale of the Allied citizens particularly came into it. Probably far more of a financial consideration if anything.

Oh come on! Al Qaeda being compared with the actions of the allies in WWII is absurd. The allied action was in response to a formal war scenario, instigated by the axis. Al Qaeda perpetrated an atrocity as a result of what war scenario exactly? You're stretching analogies to an absurd degree. I suspect you know it but carry on by all means!
You can't apply morals freely from today to events in the past. For a start, the U.N. didn't exist in '45, there was no European Human Rights legislation etc etc etc. Of course, you can look at events from then and think they weren't great cf. today's measure but it doesn't mean a lot really. If you'd been alive then, having lived (and maybe fought through) WWII, I don't think you'd be taking the same view as you are now.

[navyblueshorts]

You'd have to think a huge pandemic is just a matter of time.

Nah. What's happening in West Africa is a result of a scheiss health system, eating monkeys etc and non-existant education re. infectious disease. If we have any cases in Ireland or wherever else in 'the West', they'll just be isolated and it'll burn out. It's not an airborne infection so it's highly unlikely to be a global problem in the same sense that a serious new strain of influenza might be.
Still, I wouldn't want to catch it given the potential lethality. A haemorrhagic fever like Ebola can't be a nice way to go..

[JAS]

Bit sneaky to use the bomb on civilians though navy don't you think?

So where do,Guilford, Birmingham, Warrington and indeed Omagh sit it terms of sneaky use of bombs on civilian targets Inco?? Just asking

[incontinentia]

Highly sneaky Jas, and deplorable acts. If the IRA really believed they were fighting a war, then they too should have focussed their efforts on the occupying forces.

[incontinentia]

Military necessity, along with distinction, and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict.

Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective,[13] and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.[14]

Distinction is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and civilians.[a][15]

Proportionality is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective.[ere's a snippet from Wikipedia on the principles of the laws of war.

"

[Diggers]

Well I'm sure Al Qaeda had enough of the west interfering in Islamic States therefore 9/11 is perfectly justifiable?
I dont really get your logic as to why I can't apply today's morals to so thing that happened in 1945. We were supposedly a civilised democracy then as we are now, decisions made had consequences then as they do now.
Re people having enough, there wasn't a referendum as to whether to bomb, it was a political and military decision (like Iraq). I don't think the morale of the Allied citizens particularly came into it. Probably far more of a financial consideration if anything.

Oh come on! Al Qaeda being compared with the actions of the allies in WWII is absurd. The allied action was in response to a formal war scenario, instigated by the axis. Al Qaeda perpetrated an atrocity as a result of what war scenario exactly? You're stretching analogies to an absurd degree. I suspect you know it but carry on by all means!
You can't apply morals freely from today to events in the past. For a start, the U.N. didn't exist in '45, there was no European Human Rights legislation etc etc etc. Of course, you can look at events from then and think they weren't great cf. today's measure but it doesn't mean a lot really. If you'd been alive then, having lived (and maybe fought through) WWII, I don't think you'd be taking the same view as you are now.

Actually the UN basically formed in 1942 but you can go back another 50 years to look at relevant treaties about hot to fight a war. But of course as Iraq showed its all irrelevant when a superstate can choose to ignore the UN legislation.
If you think a fully fledged UN in 1945 would have stopped the A bombs I think you are very wrong.
As you keep saying the difference was 6 years of war, but not of course for the US and not really on their soil)
but again this wasn't the reason for the bombs as discussed before.

[JAS]

That's all very well Inco but I'm not sure the despots and rising Jihadists of this world give a flying Smeg about proportionality, legality and honour in warfare. By and large UN members have to at least try and stick to those principles whilst the loonies that think they'll get 57 virgins when they go to heaven for ridding the world of western infidels don't have any rules.

[super_realist]

That's all very well Inco but I'm not sure the despots and rising Jihadists of this world give a flying Smeg about proportionality, legality and honour in warfare. By and large UN members have to at least try and stick to those principles whilst the loonies that think they'll get 57 virgins when they go to heaven for ridding the world of western infidels don't have any rules.

Mental illness basically.

[JAS]

At the end of the day the A bomb ended the war in the Pacific...how long would it have dragged on for had there not been a surrender.

Sad for the civilian Japs who died as they probably had no say at all on whether their country should have been at war or not.

The A bomb was disproportionate retaliation motivated by revenge. It was the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 and the communication or lack of it immediately before that so inscenced the Americans.
A dishonourable act retaliated disproportionately with another. That happens in war.

[incontinentia]

That's all very well Inco but I'm not sure the despots and rising Jihadists of this world give a flying Smeg about proportionality, legality and honour in warfare. By and large UN members have to at least try and stick to those principles whilst the loonies that think they'll get 57 virgins when they go to heaven for ridding the world of western infidels don't have any rules.

True Jas, although I feel much of this "law of war" is more window dressing than anything else. Most soldiers seem to adhere to the "all's fair in love and war" philosophy.

[Diggers]

That's all very well Inco but I'm not sure the despots and rising Jihadists of this world give a flying Smeg about proportionality, legality and honour in warfare. By and large UN members have to at least try and stick to those principles whilst the loonies that think they'll get 57 virgins when they go to heaven for ridding the world of western infidels don't have any rules.

True Jas, although I feel much of this "law of war" is more window dressing than anything else. Most soldiers seem to adhere to the "all's fair in love and war" philosophy.

I deplore the "that's war, crap happens" argument. It takes away from any supposed just cause and isn't good enough. Pearl Harbour was an excuse for the A bombs but I don't think in reality it had much to do with the decision, far, far more to do with the Soviet threat.
And quite frankly if it had been Stalin who had the A bomb and he had used it I don't think the action would be dismissed so readily.

[JAS]

That's all very well Inco but I'm not sure the despots and rising Jihadists of this world give a flying Smeg about proportionality, legality and honour in warfare. By and large UN members have to at least try and stick to those principles whilst the loonies that think they'll get 57 virgins when they go to heaven for ridding the world of western infidels don't have any rules.

True Jas, although I feel much of this "law of war" is more window dressing than anything else. Most soldiers seem to adhere to the "all's fair in love and war" philosophy.

I suspect a lot of it is window dressing Inco and yes, All's fair in love and war.
As far as I'm concerned if our soldiers are risking their lives on our behalf trying to contain an extremist Islamic uprising, if they break some UN rules in the process I don't want to know and I wouldn't want them held to account either.

[Diggers]

That's all very well Inco but I'm not sure the despots and rising Jihadists of this world give a flying Smeg about proportionality, legality and honour in warfare. By and large UN members have to at least try and stick to those principles whilst the loonies that think they'll get 57 virgins when they go to heaven for ridding the world of western infidels don't have any rules.

True Jas, although I feel much of this "law of war" is more window dressing than anything else. Most soldiers seem to adhere to the "all's fair in love and war" philosophy.

I suspect a lot of it is window dressing Inco and yes, All's fair in love and war.
As far as I'm concerned if our soldiers are risking their lives on our behalf trying to contain an extremist Islamic uprising, if they break some UN rules in the process I don't want to know and I wouldn't want them held to account either.

Seriously? I find that scary, I find the thought of soldiers handing out their own justice disgusting quite frankly.

[JAS]

That's all very well Inco but I'm not sure the despots and rising Jihadists of this world give a flying Smeg about proportionality, legality and honour in warfare. By and large UN members have to at least try and stick to those principles whilst the loonies that think they'll get 57 virgins when they go to heaven for ridding the world of western infidels don't have any rules.

True Jas, although I feel much of this "law of war" is more window dressing than anything else. Most soldiers seem to adhere to the "all's fair in love and war" philosophy.

I suspect a lot of it is window dressing Inco and yes, All's fair in love and war.
As far as I'm concerned if our soldiers are risking their lives on our behalf trying to contain an extremist Islamic uprising, if they break some UN rules in the process I don't want to know and I wouldn't want them held to account either.

Seriously? I find that scary, I find the thought of soldiers handing out their own justice disgusting quite frankly.

Yes seriously, I don't expect soldiers to judge me on how I do my job. The vast majority of us civvies will not have the slightest clue what some of those lads will go through in conflict zones. To question and criticise what soldiers do on the ground can introduce doubt and undermine a campaign. I'm also talking about what's reasonable (although that admittedly is subjective).

[Sponsored content]