Quoting:
He's right about Bush having no foresight and not being able to think properly.

Mandela is worried that this war with Iraq will open up a huge can of worms. US might suffer more casualties than expected, aggression against Islamic fundamentalists will increase, in turn terrorism increases across America and Europe......
End Quote

I do not think Mandela's comments were a warning to the US about casulties. If you remember, in the first war in 90, we suffered next to zero casulties while kicking the living snot out of Iraq. And now Iraq is crippled and far less able to defend itself. I think this war could be done in two weeks.

What I do not understand is Mandela was helped by the US and now he is saying some very strong words about us starting a holocaust and us being perpetrators of atrocities. He is making it sound like we are the ones who are wrong. I just do not understand it.

Quoting:
What I do not understand is Mandela was helped by the US and now he is saying some very strong words about us starting a holocaust and us being perpetrators of atrocities. He is making it sound like we are the ones who are wrong. I just do not understand it.
End Quote

With all due respect, John
You probably don't understand because you live in the shadow of your country's sinister propaganda.
You ARE in the wrong.  You DO perpetrate atrocities, far more than Iraq could ever hope to do.
You blame Iraq for killing 5000 civilians in Kurdistan, you killed 8000 in Afghanistan for exactly the same reasons (You accused them of harbouring terrorists).
You have WMDs and are the ONLY nation to have ever used them (twice, on civilian targets)
You support Israel, a terrorist state, also with WMDs who are in breach of UN resolutions, the Geneva convention and regularly massacre civilians.  Even their leader is a wanted war criminal but you still supply them with weapons.
You yourself ignore the Geneva convention (camp Xray).

John, you say you respected Mandela so why not now, just because he says things you find difficult.

Please, America, wake up!
We (the rest of the world) know what's going on.
Get rid of your undemocratic, warmongering leaders and rejoin the civilised world.

btw - Considering my own county's stance on this matter, Our leaders are no more democratic or civilised.  Please don't take this as a comparison between the US and UK

Quoting:
If you remember, in the first war in 90, we suffered next to zero casulties while kicking the living snot out of Iraq. And now Iraq is crippled and far less able to defend itself
End Quote

Big difference is you'll be fighting in Iraq this time, with much more time for defensive action to be planned.  IMO it depends an awful lot on the reaction of the general population in Iraq: if they're happy to see SH kicked out, you'll probably have an easy time of it; if they see it as an invasion that's against them too, you'll see much higher casualties.

Quoting:
The ramblings of another Bush hater ::)
End Quote

To dismiss what Mandela says so lightly is wrong: he's certainly been misinformed (the comment about how much oil Iraq produces, for example).

Consider this: what won Nelson Mandela his Nobel Peace Prize was his reaction to adversity, and the fact that he didn't go round killing people when he had the power to do so.  It would have been very easy for him, having gained power in SA, to have "done a Mugabe", and killed or otherwise driven out huge numbers of (white) people.  So it's not entirely surprising that he weighs in heavily against the sort of war that's being planned.

Phil

Quoting:
You blame Iraq for killing 5000 civilians in Kurdistan, you killed 8000 in Afghanistan for exactly the same reasons (You accused them of harbouring terrorists).
End Quote

Sorry, Taoist, but the truth is Iraq attacked Kuristan because Hussein is obsessed with a genocidal campaign agaisnt them, just like he is with Israel. He also attacked Kuwait in 1990, but it not the first time Iraq attacked Kuwait. And Afghanistan attacked the US, so that was why we bombed them.

quote author=Taoist link=board=inthe00s&num=1044021700&start=0#4 date=01/31/03 at 08:06:48]
You have WMDs and are the ONLY nation to have ever used them (twice, on civilian targets).
End Quote

No, we're not the only nation to have ever used them. We're just the only nation to have used NUCLEAR weapons, and if we hadn't, we still would've been fighting Imperial Japan(who also attacked us first) for a few more years.


quote author=Taoist link=board=inthe00s&num=1044021700&start=0#4 date=01/31/03 at 08:06:48]
You support Israel, a terrorist state, also with WMDs who are in breach of UN resolutions, the Geneva convention and regularly massacre civilians.
End Quote

Only because those "civilians" continuously massacre civilians in Israel, whehter they're Jewish or not, or Israeli or not.

quote author=Taoist link=board=inthe00s&num=1044021700&start=0#4 date=01/31/03 at 08:06:48]
Even their leader is a wanted war criminal...
End Quote

Only to islamic fanantics and right-wing neo-Nazis.



quote author=Taoist link=board=inthe00s&num=1044021700&start=0#4 date=01/31/03 at 08:06:48]
John, you say you respected Mandela so why not now, just because he says things you find difficult.
End Quote

I can't speak for John, but the fact remanis that outside of the issue of Apartheid, Nelson Mandela doesn't know what he's talking about. His attempts to maintain solidarity with the people of the third wolrd has blinded him to the vicious tyranny of the dictators of the third world, and all the problems they cause.



quote author=Taoist link=board=inthe00s&num=1044021700&start=0#4 date=01/31/03 at 08:06:48]
Please, America, wake up!
We (the rest of the world) know what's going on.
End Quote

No, you only know what you're TOLD is going on by enemy propagandists.

Quoting:
Consider this: what won Nelson Mandela his Nobel Peace Prize was his reaction to adversity, and the fact that he didn't go round killing people when he had the power to do so.  It would have been very easy for him, having gained power in SA, to have "done a Mugabe", and killed or otherwise driven out huge numbers of (white) people.  So it's not entirely surprising that he weighs in heavily against the sort of war that's being planned.

Phil
End Quote

What you wrote makes sense to me. I can understand a person who wants to avoid violence.

Another poster wrote something about 5,000 kurds, and how Iraq is doing the same thing the US is doing. I disagree with that post. I watched nighline, where they taped 1000's of Kurds fleeing with nothing but their what they were wearing trying to avoid the Iraqi's. Evidently, if the kurds got caught, they were executed. That show made me wonder if Sadam = Hitler?

I still think the USA has its hand in too many cookie jars. We should concentrate on our own country. The only good reason for war is self defense.

Quoting:

With all due respect, John
You probably don't understand because you live in the shadow of your country's sinister propaganda.
You ARE in the wrong.  You DO perpetrate atrocities, far more than Iraq could ever hope to do.
You blame Iraq for killing 5000 civilians in Kurdistan, you killed 8000 in Afghanistan for exactly the same reasons (You accused them of harbouring terrorists).
You have WMDs and are the ONLY nation to have ever used them (twice, on civilian targets)
You support Israel, a terrorist state, also with WMDs who are in breach of UN resolutions, the Geneva convention and regularly massacre civilians.  Even their leader is a wanted war criminal but you still supply them with weapons.
You yourself ignore the Geneva convention (camp Xray).

John, you say you respected Mandela so why not now, just because he says things you find difficult.

Please, America, wake up!
We (the rest of the world) know what's going on.
Get rid of your undemocratic, warmongering leaders and rejoin the civilised world.

btw - Considering my own county's stance on this matter, Our leaders are no more democratic or civilised.  Please don't take this as a comparison between the US and UK
End Quote

Yikes! It's such a powderkeg subject! You're lucky you're replying to John or else there'd be some board bannings ;)

One thing our President or any public official never addressed is the fact that the US could've gotten rid of Hussein back in Gulf War I with the help of Iraqi dissenters. This was the original plan, to use Iraqi dissenters as the ground troops and have the US arm them and train and provide back-up. So the dissenters waited and waited for the help that never arrived... and Hussein got up from the one-two strike that was Gulf War I, reinstated himself back into place, and had them all eliminated! Thank you, USA ;)

I just wish I had whatever information Bush and the other officials have on Iraq, the concrete evidence as to why we should commit ourselves to killing people in foreign lands - in a detailed report!

Quoting:AS JAPAN REMEMBERED HIROSHIMA on the August 6 anniversary of its 1945 meltdown beneath the mushroom cloud of an American atomic bomb, the news that this week shook Japan caused scarcely a ripple in the West.

Documents have just been returned to Japan by the widow of one of its World War II nuclear scientists, Kazuo Kuroda, who fled with them to the United States in 1945 and later became a professor at the University of Arkansas.

As the Red Army closed in on Japan’s secret nuclear research facilities in occupied Korea, the military leadership in Tokyo ordered all nuclear weapon plans and other evidence destroyed. But as Britain’s The Independent reported Monday based on a story in the Japanese liberal newspaper Asahi Shimbun, fellow scientists from Japan’s Institute of Physical and Chemical Research "decided to save at least part of the plans by giving them to Mr. Kuroda," who kept the documents secret until he died in April 2001.

What these diagrams reveal, as some historians had long speculated, is that Japan may have been within days of testing its own atomic bomb.

My friend and fellow radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock, while visiting the peace memorial at Hiroshima, met an elderly Japanese veteran of the war. They agreed that this bomb had been terrifying and terrible.

But if you had developed an atom bomb before we did, Hedgecock at last asked him, would you have used it on us? Replied the elderly warrior matter-of-factly, with little emotion, "Of course we would."End Quote

Quoting:Marshall also knew prior to the February 1945 Yalta Conference that Russia would break its nonaggression pact with Japan and attack Manchuria about 90 days after the surrender of Germany (V-E Day). The Magic Summaries documented the shift of Soviet troops by rail from Europe to the Far East for this purpose. Because of a major intelligence failure, Marshall also believed that the Japanese had maintained their troop strength In Manchuria and were capable to resisting a Soviet Attack. But Tokyo had secretly brought back many of its troops from Manchuria to defend the home islands of Japan from an American invasion, leaving Manchuria and Korea easy prey for the Russians.

Marshall also knew from the Magic decrypts that the Japanese home islands were to be defended from invasion and occupation by 2.3 million troops, another four million Army and Navy employees and a newly created armed militia numbering 25 million. These defenders were sworn to fight to the death, which so many Japanese troops had done in battles throughout the Pacific.

To effectively invade and occupy Japan, American strategists foresaw two invasions, scheduled for November 1945 and March 1946. The first invasion, on the island of Kyushu. would employ some 770,000 American troops. The follow-up invasion on the plains of Tokyo, leading to the forced occupation of Japan, called for two million American troops.

This brings us to the heart of the Enola Gay argument made by revisionist historians who claim

(1) that President Truman either invented after the fact high invasion casualty estimates to provide moral and political justification for the use of atomic weapons; or
(2) that Truman was never told about potentially high invasion casualties; or
(3) that archival documentation for pre-invasion casualty estimates does not exist; or
(4) that the pre-invasion estimates were minuscule.
But according to documents I have uncovered, a conference to discuss pre-invasion casualties was held at the White House on June 18, 1945, between President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From the Pacific, Gen. Douglas MacArthur submitted rather optimistic casualty estimates. This caused Adm. William D. Leahy, Truman's military advisor, to take charge of the session. Based on the experience at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Leahy predicted that in an invasion of Japan, 30% to 35% of U.S. soldiers would be killed or wounded during the first 30 days. Truman obviously understood what Leahy said. The president remarked that the invasion would create another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other. The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed.

Suddenly, and only after being advised about the buildup of Japanese forces and fortifications by Magic intelligence, MacArthur medical staff revised its pre-invasion needs for hospital beds upwards by 300%. MacArthur's chief surgeon, Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a 120-day campaign to invade and occupy only the island of Kyushu would result in 395,000 casualties.

Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries, just before the Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, about behind-the-scenes negotiations between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito's blessing, had met with the Russian ambassador to Tokyo to propose a new relationship between the two countries. Japan proposed to carve up Asia with the USSR . According to the Magic Diplomatic Summaries of July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador: "Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world...." The Magic Summaries further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan's militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans.

On July 4, 1945, the British agree to the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. On July 16, during the Potsdam Conference, the first A-bomb was successfully tested. A way had been found to end the war quickly and decisively. This was the situation on July 26 when the U.S., Britain and China issued the Potsdam Declaration to Japan to surrender unconditionally, "The alternative," said the declaration, "is complete and utter destruction."

On July 25, Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki announced to the Japanese press that the Potsdnm declaration was to be Ignored." Meanwhile, the Magic Summaries revealed that Tokyo was demanding that Moscow accept a special envoy from Emperor Hirohito, presumably to cement the deal offering to divide Asia between Japan and Russia while Moscow brokered a Japanese surrender with the U.S. and Britain that would be acceptable to Tokyo.

This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan. Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared to surrender nor to negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the only way to end the war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear weapons.

Two bombs were dropped. The Russians invaded Manchuria. On August 10, Emperor Hirohito overruled his militarist advisors and accepted the Potsdam declaration. Japan surrendered.


Propaganda Campaign
But the Americans continued to read the Japanese codes. Almost immediately; the Magic Summaries revealed that the new foreign minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, had begun a world-wide propaganda campaign to brand the Americans as war criminals for using nuclear weapons. Tokyo's goals included keeping Emperor Hirohito from being tried for instigating a war of aggression, and diverting Western attention away from the many Japanese atrocities committed since the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937. "Since the Americans have recently been raising an uproar about the question of our mistreatment of prisoners ,'' Shigemitsu instructed his diplomats in the Sept. 15, 1945, Magic Summary, "I think we should make every effort to exploit the atomic bomb question in our propaganda. That propaganda campaign has borne its final fruit in the revisionist account of the bombing of Japan.

Yet the evidence is crystal clear. The use of nuclear weapons to end World War II quickly and decisively averted the death or maiming of hundreds of thousands American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. It also saved the lives of some 400,000 Allied prisoners of war and civilian detainees in Japanese hands, all of whom were to be executed in the event of an American invasion of Japan. Above all, it saved untold hundreds of thousands more Japanese-perhaps millions-from becoming casualties of pre-invasion bombing and shelling, followed by two invasions and forcible occupation.End Quote

Quoting:
What the hell do you mean by JUST??? There's absolutely no such thing as JUST using nuclear weapons. And I'd certainly be interested in a few referencable examples of other countries using WMDs.
End Quote

Well, in WWI the Germans used these chemical weapons against the Allies: 1) Lacrymators: Benzylbromide. (2) Sternutators: Diphenylchlorarsine. (3) Lung irritants: Chlorine, phosgene, carbon oxychloride, chlormethylchlorformate, bromacetone, chloropicrin. (4) Vesicants: Dichlorethylsulphide, chlorarsines, bromoarsines.
Here's some information on these chemicals from the Kansas University web-site:
1. THE LACRYMATORS produced temporary blindness. Liberation of small quantities of a gas of this type made it impossible to carry on without wearing a mask. These gases, while not responsible for many evacuations to the rear, harassed troops engaged in close fighting or in manipulating guns. Practically all of the long list of lacrymators had a bromine base.

2. THE STERNUTATOR gases or nasopharyngeal irritants were nonlethal. They were capable, however, of producing extreme irritation of the nose, throat, and eyes, caused severe headache and nausea. The symptoms were comparatively short in duration, and the gases were not effective when the mask was worn. The inhalation of these gases before the application of the mask made mask wearing very uncomfortable and was apt to cause its premature removal and thus to subject the wearer to the effects of more important gases which usually accompanied or immediately followed the use of the sternutators. This type of gas usually arrived in the nature of a surprise, since it was used in high explosive shells. Because of this it was difficult for the troops to recognize immediately the presence of the gas. A good example of this type of gas is diphenylchlorarsine, which was long and extensively used at the front.

3. THE SUFFOCATING gases were used to kill and contained the most deadly substances employed in chemical warfare. Severe edema of the lungs quickly followed their inhalation, and death from asphyxiation frequently resulted within a few hours. Gases of this character were rather quickly dissipated, however, and it was difficult for the enemy to maintain an effective concentration over a long period of time. Good mask discipline robbed these gases of most of their terror and placed heavy expense on the enemy when they were extensively used. The two gases of this group most widely employed along our front were phosgene and chloropicrin.

Many combinations were made from these gases with other substances intended to assist them in their action.



PHOSGENE, a gas of high density, with an odor much like that of decaying hay or grain, is little, if at all, irritating to the eyes and has no irritant action on the skin. Its presence, therefore, was perceived with difficulty and men were gassed before they were aware of exposure.

CHLOROPICRIN requires a higher degree of concentration to cause a suffocative action than could readily be obtained in field use. It was frequently used in conjunction with phosgene the enemy hoping that the prompt irritant effect of the chloropicrin would prevent the wearing of the gas mask, thus rendering the soldier an easy prey to the accompanying phosgene.

THE VESICANT TYPE of gas made its appearance later than the others mentioned, but soon became the most important in gas warfare. It first came into prominence at Ypres on July 12, 1917, dichlorethylsulphide being the chemical used.#1It was called by the French soldiers "yperite," by the Italians "yprite," and by the British, "mustard gas."Gas-mask discipline offered ample protection to the eyes and lungs, but very important military results were obtained from skin burns which caused the evacuation of enormous numbers of casualties. The Central Powers considered dichlorethylsulphide their most pernicious gas, and the experience of the Allies certainly confirmed the opinion that it had won this place in military importance. This gas had many features which rendered it especially suitable. It was toxic in concentrations which could not be detected by the sense of smell; the person affected suffered no discomfort at the time of the exposure, and symptoms were not evident until man hours later. Mustard gas penetrated all clothing and was remarkably persistent on the earth or on foliage over which it had been scattered. These factors tended to increase its effectiveness; in addition to the physical action of the gas on the men themselves, the morale of troops was impaired.

In WWII the Germans used a number of different methods to mass extermite Jews.

If we define WMDs as weapons used to create destruction beyond the means of the victims to respond, then WWII is rife with examples.  Tokyo, and most major European cities, were targets of carpet bombers.  Incindiary bombs caused the destruction of Dresden, and was used effectively against many Japanese cities.

Quoting:
From CNN:
"JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (CNN) -- Former South African president Nelson Mandela has slammed the U.S. stance on Iraq, saying that "one power with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust." "

***

End Quote

You're all going to think I'm insane...but Nelson Mandela Is absolutley right. And that's all I'm going to say.

Quoting:
You're all going to think I'm insane...but Nelson Mandela Is absolutley right. And that's all I'm going to say.
End Quote

::)

...well you prefaced your statement with an "insanity disclaimer", so at least you aknowledge that fact that your statement sounds insane.  Thats a plus. :D

Quoting:
::)

...well you prefaced your statement with an "insanity disclaimer", so at least you aknowledge that fact that your statement sounds insane.  Thats a plus. :D
End Quote

Now let's not go there...

As a naturalized citizen, I have made the USA my home and have pledged my allegiance to the USA.  That doesn't mean I'm blind and brainwashed, it means I know what is best for me and my family and the USA provides that.  Freedom of speech, due process, the right to bear arms...few nations can boast of that.  As for the "atrocities," except for maybe slavery and keeping women submissive, I can't see it.  I just don't see where he got that from.  This, from a Mandela who received support from Americans while he was jailed and when he became the president of South Africa.  And only a couple of days after Bush (a little loopy, in my mind, but still) promised billions of dollars to curb the African continent's AIDS epidemic.  Doesn't make sense, does it?

Quoting:


Now let's not go there...

This, from a Mandela who received support from Americans while he was jailed and when he became the president of South Africa.  And only a couple of days after Bush (a little loopy, in my mind, but still) promised billions of dollars to curb the African continent's AIDS epidemic.  Doesn't make sense, does it?End Quote

Nah.... I don't get it either, man.

Quoting:



::)

...well you prefaced your statement with an "insanity disclaimer", so at least you aknowledge that fact that your statement sounds insane.  Thats a plus. :D
End Quote

LOL!

Quoting:



LOL!
End Quote

...you lost me ???

Were you being serious or sarcastic?  My guess is sarcasm, based on your response.

Quoting:
Bush orders the invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the UN (and therefore illegally)
End Quote

Ah, but see, this raises another question brought up by recent events, namely, is the United Nations worth jack sh**?  

Quoting:
Ah, but see, this raises another question brought up by recent events, namely, is the United Nations worth jack sh**?  
End Quote

Of course it isn't!
If the US (or anyone else for that matter) cared about the UN, they wouldn't support Israel in it's consistent breaching of 68 resolutions (along with the Geneva convention)

Laws don't mean a thing unless they're applied evenly.

Quoting:
Laws don't mean a thing unless they're applied evenly.

End Quote

Laws do not mean a thing unless they are enforced! You can pass 100's of laws, but if they are not enforced it is like a gaurd dog with no teeth chewing on your leg with its gums. It's laughable.

I think the UN is a great idea. Unfortunatly the world is not a place where fairness is that important. Maybe that will change, probably not. Since the begenning of time the "have's" have been sticking it to the "have nots". At least the UN offers a formal avanue for discussing global events and politics.

Quoting:
Briefly and for the sake of information, South Africa has a small Islamic community of some 400,000 people, mainly Indian or Pakistani settlers. Numbers are on the increase, mainly among black South Africans. (ref: http://atheism.about.com/library/world/KZ/bl_SAIslam.htm )

SA isn't a muslim country and that's not Mandela's problem with American invasion plans.

End Quote

Interesting link, but of course I already knew this. Does anybody else recall the bombing of the Pretoria Planet Hollywood, by some Islamic militants in South Africa?