 sj |
||
|
||
Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs
|
|
|
Subject: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 24 Jun 05 - 09:38 PM Folks, if I hadn't heard it, I wouldn't believe it. WGN radio out of Chicago. His normal piece of commentary. He spoke about how Hiroshima and Nagasaki had ended World War 2 --- and then extrapolated those sad chapters of world history to being good and valid tactics/ideas to adopt. --- Said we ought to use "what we have in those silos" to end the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Every day that passes puts an uglier and uglier face on the doings of people in positions of responsibility who, one after another, compound the sad dynamic unfolding in this world. This must be what chaos is about. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Jun 05 - 09:55 PM Sorry Art. BS. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Donuel Date: 24 Jun 05 - 10:02 PM All options are on the table and it is true that the US has been producing thousands of mini "strategic" nukes in violation of the Nuclear treaty since 2002. What slowed down production at first was a shortage of H3O isotope tritium. Bush won't screw around if an (inevitable) embarrasing defeat is too much to bear. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jun 05 - 10:26 PM I wasn't able to google up that particular commentary. Do you know the specific date, Art? What is scary about this kind of thinking is that for everyone who goes public, there are many more who think it. Using 'limited', 'low load', 'localized', 'last resort' nuclear strikes have a weird attraction as a quick fix. Even aside from the ethical questions, I think it's short sighted. No one knows what the rest of the camel will do once its nose is in your tent. I really don't doubt that eventually this will be an "option" on the table, which means that eventually it will be used. I just hope that I'm long gone. I don't want to live in such a world. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: mack/misophist Date: 24 Jun 05 - 10:33 PM We got through the cold war intact because the use of nuclear weapons was generally recognized as insane. Remember MAD? Using them for this would create millions of new terrorists. Ultimately, more Americans would die than Iraqis. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: M.Ted Date: 24 Jun 05 - 10:40 PM The man has been a right-wing know-nothing idiot for years--I figure him to be 88 or 89, and, folks seldom change their world view at that age--you must remember what a Star Spangled hypocrite he was during the Vietnam War-- |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jun 05 - 10:46 PM LOL Ted. I remember when I discovered that! I was so surprised. I had used to think his stories were charming, and then suddenly I sussed out that his conclusions were absurd, that he was critical and judgmental in spite of having a limited, uninformed view of the world and its peoples. I haven't heard him in years now. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Deckman Date: 24 Jun 05 - 10:52 PM I have just finished a five year study of all the american wars. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan remains today a very questionable decision. It's simply impossible to separate politics from the military issues to use this weapon. I do fear that President bush will prefer to use the bomb if he senses that he will 'lose' in Iraq. It's like we haven't learned anything ... at all ... anytime. Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: GUEST Date: 24 Jun 05 - 11:06 PM |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Stu Date: 25 Jun 05 - 08:55 AM . . .'cos when the madman flips the switch the nuclear will go for me |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 25 Jun 05 - 10:49 AM I generally refrain from using the prefix B.S. -- I simply do not like it. I gnerally don't think that what I'm posting ought to go under that flag. But why is B.S. a valid way to respond to my taking note of what I heard Mr. Harvey say last week?? I absolutely hate to see the idea of using these weapons of mass destruction floated out there as a trial balloon of some sort by a recognized mouthpiece for the conservative positions. There was a time, not very long ago, when assassination of the opponents heads of state, and their henchmen, was completely (pretty much) off the table--. But now it happens every day. We let Hitler go on and on. And on and on and on. Also, the idea of suicide warriors giving up their precious lives on a publicized regular basis, for the cause, was, seemingly, confined to high profile political statements of the relatively few Kama Kazee (spelling?) pilots who flew missions for Japan in World War 2. I'm sure there were others who gave their lives for the "big picture" as they saw it in their minds, but I am reminded of someones idea I heard once: "People will die for an idea, provided that idea isn't quite clear to them." During Viet Nam many of us decided the ideas being put forth by the leaders as being the ones worth losing our lives for, simply, just were not worth that in the face of the rather complete wrongheadedness of that misbegotten venture. Sorry if I've drifted my own thread! Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Alba Date: 25 Jun 05 - 11:32 AM Maybe what Guest is suggesting Art with the BS Banner...is short for BUILD SHELTERS or BOMB SHELTERS! More of a warning than a dismissal about the remarks made by this particular Radio Presenter. I whole hearted agree with Ebbie "I really don't doubt that eventually this will be an "option" on the table, which means that eventually it will be used. I just hope that I'm long gone. I don't want to live in such a world." By the way, while you are online Art....I will forward that "CD" to you via our Kat ok?:>) Good to see you here as always. Love and Light to You and Yours Jude |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Metchosin Date: 25 Jun 05 - 12:50 PM While some did not consider Eisenhower an entirely stupid man, his dream for the use of nuclear bombs was as a means to construct the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lets hope advisors point out some of the "small" problems associated with nuclear weapons to the current President. Why create a "radioactive" river of oil from the oilfields of the middle east and former Soviet states to more accessible ports for North American consumption? Lets get our priorities straight here. Western interests are not primarily into eliminating funny foreign men from funny foreign lands, they just want to protect their investments and their own national interests and keep their hummers running. IMO, take heart, as long as the oil is there, no western interest would seriously consider deliberately contaminating it's oil supply big time; nobody particularly wants a "glowing" Mercedes.....hope, hope. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Jun 05 - 12:59 PM Who cares what Paul frigg'n Harvey favors? |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: M.Ted Date: 25 Jun 05 - 01:31 PM Who cares, Clinton? From his website: Paul Harvey News is the largest one-man network in the world, consisting of over 1200 radio stations, 400 Armed Forces Network stations that broadcast around the world, and 300 newspapers. And the patriotic sponsors who make his show possible |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Jun 05 - 01:39 PM So, there are a lot of stupid people around, listening to him instead of thinking for themselves... |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: CarolC Date: 25 Jun 05 - 02:21 PM So, there are a lot of stupid people around, listening to him instead of thinking for themselves... Yes there are. And they vote. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Alba Date: 25 Jun 05 - 02:25 PM Carol ma Dear :>) Jude |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Jun 05 - 02:25 PM Well, then I guess yer pretty much f-cked eh... |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jun 05 - 02:33 PM A lot of Americans grew up with Harvey, Clinton. I know people who think of him as an entertaining in-touch Uncle whose word on all the products he shills for would never lead them astray. I have a brother-in-law who has a dehumidifier, a mattress, a Bose radio system and an air cleaner in his home, and is grateful to Harvey for telling him about the products... |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Jun 05 - 02:34 PM "would never lead them astray" Famous last words, I'm sure... |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: CarolC Date: 25 Jun 05 - 03:01 PM Everybody's f-cked, Clinton, if they get their way. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: sixtieschick Date: 25 Jun 05 - 03:05 PM Well, a nuclear war would certainly give Harvey the last word: "And that's the rest of the story." |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Jun 05 - 03:08 PM Oh well... it'll give the cockroaches their chance at the top of the food chain.... Maybe they'll be better at it than we ever were |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: khandu Date: 25 Jun 05 - 06:00 PM They're all bozoes on this bus! I supported Bush in 2000. Now, five years later, I believe him to be an extremely dangerous man. Slowly, under his administration, we have seen our rights being slowly stripped from us under the guise of "patriotism" and the "war on terror". Give us a fearful, terrible enemy and watch us swap our rights for "protection". I grew up listening to and enjoying Paul Harvey. But with my change of mind concerning Bush, I discover that my mind has changed on many subjects, including Mr. Harvey. This is a worrisome world we live in, and our fearless leader worries me most. Ken |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Jun 05 - 06:05 PM "I discover that my mind has changed on many subjects" That's one of the surest signs you ain't dead yet! change! |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: M.Ted Date: 25 Jun 05 - 11:19 PM Bankers Life and Casualty, is the real reason that Paul Harvey exists--he was hired as their spokesman back in 1951, and his programs were simply a bit of dressing that surrounded his advertisements for them. Bankers Life and Casualty is one of those companies that sells inexpensive term insurance to seniors-- one of the more questionable aspects of the insurance business(and highly profitable)--it was run by someone whose name is very familiar to Public Broadcasting users--John D. MacArthur(Kathrine T. MacArthur also played a major role in running it)--we tend to think of him as a benevolent philanthropist, but when he was alive, he was better known for his hard-hearted business dealings-- |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: DougR Date: 26 Jun 05 - 02:22 PM I think we have been over this ground several times, but I agree with Paul Harvey that the dropping of the bombs on Japan was justified. I do think it ended WW2, and ultimately saved many lives, both American and Japanese. If Art heard correctly and Harvey proposed using atomic weapons against the Iraqis, that would be plain stupidity, and I don't think (though the majority of you probably disagree) that Bush is stupid. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Ebbie Date: 26 Jun 05 - 03:09 PM You didn't think that Bush would invade Iraq, either, as I recall, DougR. Back to the books, OK? |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: GUEST,Matt_R (too lazy to log in) Date: 26 Jun 05 - 03:32 PM "I have a brother-in-law who has a dehumidifier, a mattress, a Bose radio system and an air cleaner in his home, and is grateful to Harvey for telling him about the products... " What? No Sustical? hahah |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Ebbie Date: 26 Jun 05 - 03:37 PM Not knowing what Sustical is, I googled it. I never inspected my brother in law's cupboards. He probably has it, nestled next to his Immodium. *G* |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Bobert Date: 26 Jun 05 - 09:49 PM First of all, isn't Pual Harvey dead yet? Surely he is and there is some Pual Harvey sound-alikes keepin' the show alive... Heck, I was listenin' to him 40 years ago and he sounded old then... But nevermind this... As fir Bush using mini-nukes in Iraq.... Ahhhh, exactly where is he gonna drop them???? On a house where suspected insurgents live??? Come on, give me a break.... Iraq has turned into an urban war and nukes don't work in urban wars... (BTW, I as well as others predicted that Iraq would become an urban war and ain't no nuke in the "silo" gonna change that so to Paul Harvey 'er whoever is immitatting the guy, "Get friggin' real here, pal!!! Were'd you get yer military sciene trainin'? Same place as Donnie Rumsfeld???? Figgures!!!!"...............) Beam me up, Scottie.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: GUEST,Bensson Date: 27 Jun 05 - 12:05 AM let's see now, recalling the horrof of WWII, does anybody in their right mind think the Germans and Japanese would not have used the ATOMIC BOMB first??? Nnnah! No Way!!.. and the V1 & V2 rockets were just harmless TOYS??? The human cost of WWII fell heaviest on the USSR, for which the official total, military and civilian, is given as more than 20 million killed. The Allied military and civilian losses were 44 million; those of the Axis, 11 million. The military deaths on both sides in Europe numbered 19 million and in the war against Japan, 6 million. The U.S., which had few civilian losses, sustained 292,131 battle deaths and 115,187 deaths from other causes. The highest numbers of deaths, military and civilian, were as follows: USSR more than 13,000,000 military and 7,000,000 civilian; China 3,500,000 and 10,000,000; Germany 3,500,000 and 3,800,000; Poland 120,000 and 5,300,000; Japan 1,700,000 and 380,000; Yugoslavia 300,000 and 1,300,000; Romania 200,000 and 465,000; France 250,000 and 360,000; British Empire and Commonwealth 452,000 and 60,000; Italy 330,000 and 80,000; Hungary 120,000 and 280,000; and Czechoslovakia 10,000 and 330,000 Think people, think, use your head for something besides to hold your ears apart. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 27 Jun 05 - 12:23 AM If correct, amazing and graphically telling numbers... Art |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: GUEST,Bensson Date: 27 Jun 05 - 03:08 AM Most events of the past has been well documented and are easily found online. Anyone desiring to really know the TRUTH of a matter has only to have an open mind and/or research at the nearest public library. But the TRUTH is harder for some to believe than FICTION. Many refuse to believe the documented events in Nazi Germany in WWII or the attrocities commited by the Japanese in the article below. THE NANKING MASSACRE On November 11, 1937, after securing control of Shanghai, the Japanese army advanced towards Nanking from different directions. In early December, the Japanese troops were already in the proximity of Nanking. On December 9, after unsuccessfully demanding the defending Chinese troops in Nanking to surrender, the Japanese troops launched a massive attack upon the city. On the 12th, the defending Chinese troops decided to retreat to the other side of Yangtze River. On the 13th of December, the 6th and the 116th Divisions of the Japanese Army first entered the city. At the same time, the 9th Division entered Guanghua Gate, and the 16th Division entered Zhongshan Gate and the Pacific Gate. In the afternoon, two Japanese Navy fleets arrived on both sides of the Yangtze River. On the same day, December 13th, 1937, Nanking fell to the Japanese. In the next six weeks, the Japanese committed the infamous Nanking Massacre, or the Rape of Nanking, during which an estimated 300,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed, and 20,000 women were raped. During the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese committed a litany of atrocities against innocent civilians, including mass execution, raping, looting, and burning. It is impossible to keep a detailed account of all of these crimes. However, from the scale and the nature of these crimes as documented by survivors and the diaries of the Japanese militarists, the chilling evidence of this historical tragedy is indisputable. (I) THE TRAGEDY AT YANGTZE RIVER On December 13th, a large number of refugees tried to escape from the Japanese by trying to cross the Yangtze River. They were trapped on the east bank because no transportation was available; many of them tried to swim across the river. Meanwhile, the Japanese arrived and fired at the people on the shore and in the river. A Japanese soldier reported that the next day he saw an uncountable number of dead bodies of adults and children covering the whole river. He estimated that more than 50,000 people were killed at this tragic incident of the Nanking massacre. (II) ANNIHILATION IN THE CITY When the Japanese troops first entered the city on the 13th, the streets were crowded with more than 100,000 refugees or injured Chinese soldiers. The Japanese relentlessly fired at these people. The next morning, tanks and artilleries entered the city and killing of people continued. Dead bodies covered the two major streets of the city. The streets became "streets of blood" as a result of the two-day annihilation. (III) MASS EXECUTION OF CAPTIVES A large number of Chinese soldiers had already been captured in the suburban areas before the Japanese entered the city. The rest of the Chinese soldiers scattered inside the city and changed into civilian clothes. After the "City-Entering Ceremony" on the 17th, the Japanese arrested anybody who was suspected to be a Chinese soldier. A large number of young men who were arrested, together with those who had been captured earlier, were sent outside of the city to be massacred, from several thousand to tens of thousand at a time. In most cases, the captives were shot by machine guns, and those who were still alive were bayoneted individually. In some cases, the Japanese poured gasoline onto the captives and burned them alive. In some cases, poison gas was used. (IV) SCATTERED ATROCITIES WITH EXTREME CRUELTY Numerous atrocities occurred within and around the city, and the victims were largely civilians. Japanese soldiers invented and exercised inhumane and barbaric methods of killing. The brutalities included shooting, stabbing, striking off the head, cutting open the abdomen, excavating the heart, decapitation (beheading), drowning, burning, punching the body and the eyes with an awl, and even castration or punching through the vagina. (V) RAPING An estimated 20,000 women were raped by the Japanese soldiers during the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, most were brutally killed afterwards. The Japanese soldiers even raped girls less than ten years old, women over seventy years old, pregnant women, and nuns. Rampant raping took place in the streets or at religious worshiping places during the day. Many women were gang raped. Some Japanese even forced fathers to rape their daughters, sons to rape their mothers, etc. Those who resisted were killed immediately. (VI) ATROCITIES IN THE SAFETY ZONE When the Japanese were approaching Nanking in mid-November, a group of concerned foreigners formed an international rescue committee to establish a safety zone in an attempt to protect the refugees. The safety zone was located inside the city and consisted of more than twenty refugee camps, each of which accommodated from 200 to 12,000 people. During the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese frequently entered the safety zone to arrest young men. Every time, several hundred young men were arrested and executed on the site. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: GUEST Date: 27 Jun 05 - 11:19 AM Benson, Some of us simply may not have your far seeing imagination and compu-expertise for ferreting out the real story. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: CarolC Date: 27 Jun 05 - 11:31 AM 23,482,000 military deaths 29,355,000 civilian deaths I suspect the number of civilian deaths doesn't include the many who probably died in countries not included in the list above where fighting did take place. Civilian deaths outnumbered military deaths even then. I suspect, if we look at the numbers of civilian vs. military deaths in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the ratio of civilian deaths vs. military (or even insurgent) deaths would be much, much higher (more civilian deaths than military/insurgent). If we start using tactical nuclear weapons, my guess is that the ratio will become even more lopsided toward more civilian deaths as compared to military/insurgent deaths. Maybe the only real answer would be to take all of the high ranking military officers in the world as well as all of the people who profit financially from war out back and shoot them. They are obviously the real enemy. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: GUEST Date: 27 Jun 05 - 12:20 PM I wonder if military intelligence against the U.S. includes the locations of golf courses. On any given Sunday afternoon when the weather is good, an enemy could wipe out the upper echelons of military command by bombing those golf courses located near any military installation. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: GUEST,Phil Date: 05 Jul 05 - 01:54 PM I find this discussion of "whether he actually thinks we should use nuclear weapons" as secondary to his central idea that "savagery and might -- make right" and that "biological warfare" and "use of slavery" to make your nation "great" is all good stuff. For the record, we were winning WWII without the bomb. We fire-bombed Tokyo for months before ever dropping the bomb. In fact, we had to speed up the time-table to be able to use our ultimate distructive toy and almost missed the opportunity to use it on "PEOPLE". Yep, we wanted to know what happens to the civilians. There was nothing of significant military value in either of those cities. But then "we're not made of sugar candy". When "Bo-hunker" realizes he won't be able to drive his oversized Hum-vee unless we go back to our roots (savagery, wmds, slave labor) he will VOTE for those things faster than a conservative will take your rights away. Have a nice day. |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: kendall Date: 05 Jul 05 - 08:33 PM Right wing nutcase |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Bunnahabhain Date: 06 Jul 05 - 02:24 PM I Second Doug R. Dropping Nuclear weapons on Japan saved lives on both sides. Operation Downfall ( the invasion of japan) was heavily studied, and the following casulty estimates were arrived at. US Casulties. Low estimate. 150,000 High estimate. 750,000+ Most likley. 450,000 Japanese Casulties, Civilian and Millitary. Low estimate. 1,000,000 High estimate. 5,000,000+ Most likley. 2, 500,000 Estimates for total casulties for both bombs range about 400-500,000. Also agree with Bobert. Why use Nukes when you're trying to clear somewhere house by house? The US may well be building very small yield nukes, but no State would use one in a city. Bunnahabhain |
|
Subject: RE: Paul Harvey favors using nuclear bombs From: Greg F. Date: 06 Jul 05 - 04:23 PM First of all, isn't Pual Harvey dead yet? Only above the neck, Bobert. Been so the past 30 years, and all. |
| Share Thread: |
