“Peace for Our Time”

[Bigwolf]

I am not sure what triggered my thinking about “Peace for Our Time”, but I decided to revisit some of the information about it.
 So, Just some “food for thought” that you might want to use in evaluating the current situation between the United States and Iran.  Have you ever heard of “Peace for Our Time”?  Look it up.  Just 11 months after this agreement was signed, they were at war.  I don’t know what the answer is, but  I believe there are similarities in attitudes and motives then and today.     
                                                                                                                                                                         Date:1938
Annotation: Speech in defense of the 1938 Munich agreement.

The September 1938 agreement came to symbolize the futility of appeasement to Nazi Germany. In an attempt to forestall an immediate European war, Prime Minister Chamberlain (Great Britain) signed an agreement with Germany, France, and Italy, allowing the Nazi annexation of a German speaking part of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland).

The ceded territory contained military emplacements designed to repel a German attack. The agreement strengthened the German military position and failed to halt a war.

The Nazis saw the Agreement as a sign of weakness that validated their aggressive stance.

[Jess from VA]

The Iranians can never go toe to toe with us, but we do not (ever) want a ground war with them.  Read up on the 10 year war between Iraq and Iran.  We helped Iraq against Iran, but should have given both sides many more weapons and artillery.

We don't want any war with them.  But that doesn't mean we can't sting them for bad behavior in the region.  Tactically with bombs and economic sanctions.  

I suppose there are parallels with the Ayatollahs and Hitler.  Principally, their affection for Jewish people. And hard repression of any form of internal dissent.  And they're both maniacs/fanatics.  

Peace treaties with lying maniacs is the work of fools and socialists.  Stalin also thought he had a deal with Hitler, and was mistaken.  He was a maniac too.  Although, in truth, as long as we continue to maintain a hugely expensive State Dept with trained diplomats, there is always something to be gained from negotiation (vs war), so long as you keep in mind you are dealing with maniacs who cannot be trusted.

As far as Chamberlain goes, you have to remember that the Brits lost whole generations of men in WWI, and they never wanted to go through that again (and you can't blame them).  WWI would have gone better if all the generals had been shot right away.

It's safe to say that so long as we have humans, we will never have (global) peace.  A percentage of humans will always be maniacs.

[old2soon]

         From what I've read and comprehend slightly muslims can and will enter into agreements and contracts with non muslims BUT because the other party is not a muslim they do NOT have to hold up their end of bargain or contract because other party IS a non believer. Again Jess the trust thingy. I believe them all and trust them all bout near as far as i can throw one minus 50 feet.
         Article today i just saw the headline on. Is POTUS serious about threatening heritage sites in iran? Makes one wonder if iran IS stupid enough to poke this particular tiger?
         My personal belief is peace WILL arrive for all with the 2nd coming of Our Christian GOD. RIDE SAFE.

[Skinhead]

Wan't it ISIS that was blowing up Ancient artifacts in the middle east a couple years ago?  Why should we give a rats ass about their culture and heritage when they themselves don't?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wan't it ISIS that was blowing up Ancient artifacts in the middle east a couple years ago?  Why should we give a rats ass about their culture and heritage when they themselves don't?

Because we are better, more moral people than ISIS ?  ???

(And it’s a war crime)

[Black Pearl's Captain]

Is it still an ancient artifact if the "soldier" (wearing bedsheets not uniforms) hide, rest, reload inside. Or would that make it a bomb target? That is the question.

[Serk]

Wan't it ISIS that was blowing up Ancient artifacts in the middle east a couple years ago?  Why should we give a rats ass about their culture and heritage when they themselves don't?

Because we are better, more moral people than ISIS ?  ???

(And it’s a war crime)

Destroying cultural sites for the sake of destroying cultural sites is wrong, and something we should never stoop down to doing.

However, if an enemy uses cultural sites as a shield to house it's military personnel and/or equipment, then those cultural sites have just become legitimate military targets.

[scooperhsd]

Wan't it ISIS that was blowing up Ancient artifacts in the middle east a couple years ago?  Why should we give a rats ass about their culture and heritage when they themselves don't?

Because we are better, more moral people than ISIS ?  ???

(And it’s a war crime)

Destroying cultural sites for the sake of destroying cultural sites is wrong, and something we should never stoop down to doing.

However, if an enemy uses cultural sites as a shield to house it's military personnel and/or equipment, then those cultural sites have just become legitimate military targets.

That's my interpretation....

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wan't it ISIS that was blowing up Ancient artifacts in the middle east a couple years ago?  Why should we give a rats ass about their culture and heritage when they themselves don't?

Because we are better, more moral people than ISIS ?  ???

(And it’s a war crime)

Destroying cultural sites for the sake of destroying cultural sites is wrong, and something we should never stoop down to doing.

However, if an enemy uses cultural sites as a shield to house it's military personnel and/or equipment, then those cultural sites have just become legitimate military targets.

Our President doesn’t seem to draw that distinction.

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

I wonder if he will now fire his Defense Secretary for not towing the Trump line ?

[MAD6Gun]

Wan't it ISIS that was blowing up Ancient artifacts in the middle east a couple years ago?  Why should we give a rats ass about their culture and heritage when they themselves don't?

Because we are better, more moral people than ISIS ?  ???

(And it’s a war crime)

Destroying cultural sites for the sake of destroying cultural sites is wrong, and something we should never stoop down to doing.

However, if an enemy uses cultural sites as a shield to house it's military personnel and/or equipment, then those cultural sites have just become legitimate military targets.

Our President doesn’t seem to draw that distinction.

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

I wonder if he will now fire his Defense Secretary for not towing the Trump line ?

 Yeah so. Trump is right. But he hasn't targeted cultural sites now has he. Saying he is doesn't mean he will.  I agree with Serk though. If they use their cultural sites to hide in or to launch from they are fair game. Don't you think?

[Serk]

Our President doesn’t seem to draw that distinction.

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

I wonder if he will now fire his Defense Secretary for not towing the Trump line ?

If you believe the drumbeat of negativity about our president from the main stream media I could see how you would read his statement that way, however if you gave our commander in chief the tiniest bit of the benefit of the doubt, it's pretty obvious he's saying what I was referring to earlier, that their cultural sites can not be used as safe havens for their military, not that the sites would be targets on their own.

[Jess from VA]

Wan't it ISIS that was blowing up Ancient artifacts in the middle east a couple years ago?  Why should we give a rats ass about their culture and heritage when they themselves don't?

Because we are better, more moral people than ISIS ?  ???

(And it’s a war crime)

Destroying cultural sites for the sake of destroying cultural sites is wrong, and something we should never stoop down to doing.

However, if an enemy uses cultural sites as a shield to house it's military personnel and/or equipment, then those cultural sites have just become legitimate military targets.

That's my interpretation....

That is the Law of Armed Conflict (in a nutshell).  

Remember we avoided Monte Cassino (cultural site) in Italy for a long time fighting the Germans up the boot (who built successive lines of defense all the way up that mountainous country, and took a terrible toll on us).

We thought the Germans were using it against us (they probably were but for observation only), so we bombed the crap out of it, and then the Germans moved in, and the ruins provided better cover than the buildings ever did.

The N Vietnamese put antiaircraft on top of Hanoi hospitals, and we hit those.  

Every (bomb) mission we run entails risk to our own people, and there is no military reason at all to bomb cultural sites unless they are used to shield enemy positions or equipment.  Hitting cultural sites of no military value simply strengthens an enemy's resolve.  A long range planner does not forget that after the war is over we hope to get back to decent relations with those people, and bombing cultural sites of no military value does not help that goal at all.  Although we bombed the stuffings out of Germany, we specifically left certain buildings and areas off the target list, and then used those places for our post-war operations centers.  

Working in Strategic Air Command, studying bombing and Law of Armed Conflict was a hobby (duty) of mine.  Although there's not a lot of precision work in lobbying megaton nukes at folks, SAC did much more conventional bombing than nukes.  

Circle Error Probable in our missiles is very damn good however.  We can stick them in your ear.

[Avanti]

War with Rules?  
Follow the Rules or you are not invited?  
One Rule Book?  
War or Game?

[Jess from VA]

We try to follow the rules of the Hague and Geneva Conventions as much as possible, even if our enemies do not.  And those conventions actually allow greater latitudes against enemies who do not follow them.  For instance, you are not supposed to shoot men surrendering under a white flag.  But after the Japanese repeatedly used this as subterfuge to kill their captors, we often just machined gunned them white flag or not.  The Law of Armed Conflict is flexible.  

The principle reason we do is for the care and treatment of our own POWs.  By following the rules, we hope the enemy will follow suit for our men and women in their hands.

Remember the (first) Iraq War where you saw hundreds of film clips of the Iraqis surrendering en mass to our troops?  They knew we would not kill them and would feed them, unlike their treatment by Saddam.  So humane treatment of prisoners directly saves our own men's lives, and shortens the war.  

We (and our allies) historically have also made a point of trying war criminals for war violations, although IMHO we never hanged anywhere near enough people. (Although after WWII and the indiscriminate slaughter of millions by Hitler, Tojo and Stalin, everyone was pretty sick of the killing.)    

[The emperor has no clothes]

Our President doesn’t seem to draw that distinction.

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

I wonder if he will now fire his Defense Secretary for not towing the Trump line ?

If you believe the drumbeat of negativity about our president from the main stream media I could see how you would read his statement that way, however if you gave our commander in chief the tiniest bit of the benefit of the doubt, it's pretty obvious he's saying what I was referring to earlier, that their cultural sites can not be used as safe havens for their military, not that the sites would be targets on their own.

He has had 3 days to clean up that statement if you are correct. He has not. His statement reads to any non biased observer that “they don’t abide by the rules of war, why should we ?”

[Jess from VA]

He should SAY that.  But he should not DO that (unless there is some military value).

We get it, you don't like him.   We do. 

[f6john]

Our President doesn’t seem to draw that distinction.

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

I wonder if he will now fire his Defense Secretary for not towing the Trump line ?

If you believe the drumbeat of negativity about our president from the main stream media I could see how you would read his statement that way, however if you gave our commander in chief the tiniest bit of the benefit of the doubt, it's pretty obvious he's saying what I was referring to earlier, that their cultural sites can not be used as safe havens for their military, not that the sites would be targets on their own.

He has had 3 days to clean up that statement if you are correct. He has not. His statement reads to any non biased observer that “they don’t abide by the rules of war, why should we ?”

Keep them guessing, as are you, is he that crazy, it seems the Iranians are shocked that Trump took out Soleimani, what will he do after our next move? The Iranians (their leaders at least) get to decide there own future at this point  .

[scooperhsd]

I would 100% agree with "if they are NOT using culturally significant sites to shield their military / infrastructure supporting - such sites SHOULD be off limits. However, if they ARE being used to shield such - they just became legitimate targets".

You could make such a case for the Notre Dame Cathederal - I may not be Catholic, but I recognize that it is a culturally significant site and should be protected as much as possible. If it is being used to shield military activities  - it becomes a legit target.  I think most of us could agree that this would be a proper application . If the Iranians don't care about their culturally significant sites enough to use them for military activities - why should we worry about them ?

I also think we should minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. Obviously, there are some in the Middle East that do not follow this.

[The emperor has no clothes]

He should SAY that.  But he should not DO that (unless there is some military value).

We get it, you don't like him.   We do. 

Oh, believe me, I understand you do. What I don’t understand is what value you see in him stating that we will violate our oaths to the law ? Do you really think a threat to their cultural sites will deter them ? When we bluster it gives our allies pause, and it gives our enemies resolve.

[Reb]

Wan't it ISIS that was blowing up Ancient artifacts in the middle east a couple years ago?  Why should we give a rats ass about their culture and heritage when they themselves don't?

Because we are better, more moral people than ISIS ?  ???

(And it’s a war crime)

Destroying cultural sites for the sake of destroying cultural sites is wrong, and something we should never stoop down to doing.

However, if an enemy uses cultural sites as a shield to house it's military personnel and/or equipment, then those cultural sites have just become legitimate military targets.

That's my interpretation....

That is the Law of Armed Conflict (in a nutshell).  

Remember we avoided Monte Cassino (cultural site) in Italy for a long time fighting the Germans up the boot (who built successive lines of defense all the way up that mountainous country, and took a terrible toll on us).

We thought the Germans were using it against us (they probably were but for observation only), so we bombed the crap out of it, and then the Germans moved in, and the ruins provided better cover than the buildings ever did.

The N Vietnamese put antiaircraft on top of Hanoi hospitals, and we hit those.  

Every (bomb) mission we run entails risk to our own people, and there is no military reason at all to bomb cultural sites unless they are used to shield enemy positions or equipment.  Hitting cultural sites of no military value simply strengthens an enemy's resolve.  A long range planner does not forget that after the war is over we hope to get back to decent relations with those people, and bombing cultural sites of no military value does not help that goal at all.  Although we bombed the stuffings out of Germany, we specifically left certain buildings and areas off the target list, and then used those places for our post-war operations centers.  

Working in Strategic Air Command, studying bombing and Law of Armed Conflict was a hobby (duty) of mine.  Although there's not a lot of precision work in lobbying megaton nukes at folks, SAC did much more conventional bombing than nukes.  

Circle Error Probable in our missiles is very damn good however.  We can stick them in your ear.

The bombing of Dressden could be looked at as a cultural destruction bombing of the German heritage during WWII.

I believe the German propaganda machine turned that incident around on the allied forces, and had the world press looking at Nazi Germany as the victims from that event.

[Robert]

He should SAY that.  But he should not DO that (unless there is some military value).

We get it, you don't like him.   We do.  

Oh, believe me, I understand you do. What I don’t understand is what value you see in him stating that we will violate our oaths to the law ? Do you really think a threat to their cultural sites will deter them ? When we bluster it gives our allies pause, and it gives our enemies resolve.

Always looking to say something negative arent you?

  We are not in any violation of any law either by bombing any site, except a self established moral law. Especially when we see people lined up men in black masks and swords and they lopping peoples heads off recorded and sent out for shock value.

Havent you ever heard of, good cop bad cop? The pravado of Iran is only matched by the pravado of Trump, I have confidence he will do whats right. Its a shame you get riled by the words and not have confidence in the actions that are finally taken.

But in the spirit of calming a inflamation point here it is.'

Graham says he warned Trump against targeting Iranian culture sites

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477031-graham-says-he-warned-trump-against-targeting-iranian-culture-sites

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Monday that he warned President Trump against targeting Iranian cultural sites — a step the president has repeatedly threatened if Iran retaliates over the death of a top general killed in a U.S. strike.

“I talked to him today. I said we’re not at war with the culture of the Iranian people. ... Cultural sites, religious sites are not lawful targets,” Graham said.

“Putting cultural sites on the table as a military target, I think, undercuts what we're trying to do,” Graham added, recounting his conversation with Trump.

ISIS releases another video of beheading

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ym4DCem4-o

What we can learn from ISIS horrors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1P7ZIiAVE0

[The emperor has no clothes]

  We are not in any violation of any law either by bombing any site, except a self established moral law.

Uh....you do realize we are signatories to the Geneva Convention ? 

[The emperor has no clothes]

  We are not in any violation of any law either by bombing any site, except a self established moral law.

Uh....you do realize we are signatories to the Geneva Convention ? 

Just like the Magna Carta has been the basis for common law since Medieval Times.
The terrorists just laugh at those who invoke that in their lame arguments when agreeing with the muslim invasion wherever it is under way. You would have us kneeling to sharia law with the agenda you follow.

Us ? I believe you are governed by Canadian law. (I’m American)

[Robert]

"The Geneva Convention applies to wartime, we're not at war with Iran, "So, it's a moot point."

Maybe your allegances are on the wrong side if you are very worried about cultural sites of a people or should I say a group of leaders who killed many Americans, enslaved their people and made lives miserable for them. I wonder if you understand that the president has done his best to help the people of Iran but not thier leaders. But I would say that you dont care about US lives lost, are looking for points against Trump, or dont want to see a war stopped before its started because of political correctness against a regime bent on destroying the world to welcome in an Imam.

What is really interesting is Iraq’s prime minister revealed that he was due to be meeting the Iranian commander to discuss moves being made to ease the confrontation between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia – the crux of so much of strife in the Middle East and beyond.

There was nothing to suggest to the Iraqis that it was unsafe for Soleimani to travel to Baghdad – quite the contrary. This suggests that Trump helped lure the Iranian commander to a place where he could be killed.


Hussain Abdul-Hussain
https://twitter.com/hahussain/status/1213866854323752961
Hussain Abdul-Hussain

 Iraqi PM's trying to trade disarming Shia militias for limiting scope of US troops. He wrote: "Whoever wants to become a political power, has to surrender arms, join armed forces, and forgo any political allegiance (i.e. to Iran) other than to military and commander-in-chief."
8:56 AM - 5 Jan 2020

(WASHINGTON) — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that any target the U.S. military may strike in Iran, in the event Iran retaliates against America for killing its most powerful general, would be legal under the laws of armed conflict.

“Every target that we strike will be a lawful target, and it will be a target designed with a singular mission — defending and protecting America,” Pompeo said.

[Moonshot_1]

He should SAY that.  But he should not DO that (unless there is some military value).

We get it, you don't like him.   We do. 

Oh, believe me, I understand you do. What I don’t understand is what value you see in him stating that we will violate our oaths to the law ? Do you really think a threat to their cultural sites will deter them ? When we bluster it gives our allies pause, and it gives our enemies resolve.

A proper perspective is needed here.

The enemy isn't the Iranian people. Trump understands the issue quite well. A report on his UN Speech. Read it.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/22/everyone-is-overlooking-the-most-important-part-of-trumps-u-n-speech/
The enemy is the current Iranian theocracy. It is those cultural sites that are being put at risk by that very theocracy. Their actions put them in play.

[The emperor has no clothes]

"The Geneva Convention applies to wartime, we're not at war with Iran, "So, it's a moot point."

Maybe your allegances are on the wrong side if you are very worried about cultural sites of a people or should I say a group of leaders who killed many Americans.                                                                       “Every target that we strike will be a lawful target, and it will be a target designed with a singular mission — defending and protecting America,” Pompeo said.

I care not one twit about the Iranians. (I’ve a ribbon for circling 60 days in the Indian Ocean during the Hostage Crisis. Do you ?) My concern is for the integrity of our word.


Pompeo’s track record on dessiminating the truth is suspect at best. He stated for weeks if not months that he didn’t know about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian leader, when he was on the call to begin with.

[Serk]

I sleep SO much better at night knowing there's an adult in charge for a change.....

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=485207478799649

[Serk]

Our President doesn’t seem to draw that distinction.

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

I wonder if he will now fire his Defense Secretary for not towing the Trump line ?

If you believe the drumbeat of negativity about our president from the main stream media I could see how you would read his statement that way, however if you gave our commander in chief the tiniest bit of the benefit of the doubt, it's pretty obvious he's saying what I was referring to earlier, that their cultural sites can not be used as safe havens for their military, not that the sites would be targets on their own.

He has had 3 days to clean up that statement if you are correct. He has not. His statement reads to any non biased observer that “they don’t abide by the rules of war, why should we ?”

You can rest easy, our commander in chief has said we won't be targeting cultural sites for the sake of targeting cultural sites.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/trump-backs-off-threat-to-target-iranian-cultural-sites-im-okay-with-the-law.html

[f6john]

Our President doesn’t seem to draw that distinction.

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

I wonder if he will now fire his Defense Secretary for not towing the Trump line ?

If you believe the drumbeat of negativity about our president from the main stream media I could see how you would read his statement that way, however if you gave our commander in chief the tiniest bit of the benefit of the doubt, it's pretty obvious he's saying what I was referring to earlier, that their cultural sites can not be used as safe havens for their military, not that the sites would be targets on their own.

He has had 3 days to clean up that statement if you are correct. He has not. His statement reads to any non biased observer that “they don’t abide by the rules of war, why should we ?”

You can rest easy, our commander in chief has said we won't be targeting cultural sites for the sake of targeting cultural sites.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/trump-backs-off-threat-to-target-iranian-cultural-sites-im-okay-with-the-law.html

Well darn, Nancy was already drawing up another article of impeachment. And if he hadn’t issued a statement about it, but didn’t do it, it would just be added to the list of lies he’s told that must be over 15,000 by now. Who is keeping a tally on criticism? Trump would have to be the most criticized President in history, when you want to impeach a guy even before the election is over and don’t let up for 3 years. I just love the guys attitude.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Our President doesn’t seem to draw that distinction.

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

I wonder if he will now fire his Defense Secretary for not towing the Trump line ?

If you believe the drumbeat of negativity about our president from the main stream media I could see how you would read his statement that way, however if you gave our commander in chief the tiniest bit of the benefit of the doubt, it's pretty obvious he's saying what I was referring to earlier, that their cultural sites can not be used as safe havens for their military, not that the sites would be targets on their own.

He has had 3 days to clean up that statement if you are correct. He has not. His statement reads to any non biased observer that “they don’t abide by the rules of war, why should we ?”

You can rest easy, our commander in chief has said we won't be targeting cultural sites for the sake of targeting cultural sites.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/trump-backs-off-threat-to-target-iranian-cultural-sites-im-okay-with-the-law.html

Have you noticed the pattern ?

[Serk]

Have you noticed the pattern ?

I've definitely noticed a pattern; the current president having to clean up the prior president's messes one by one.....

[Jess from VA]

The bombing of Dressden could be looked at as a cultural destruction bombing of the German heritage during WWII.

I believe the German propaganda machine turned that incident around on the allied forces, and had the world press looking at Nazi Germany as the victims from that event.

Yes as Dresden was among the most ancient of German historical sites it could.  And the winds and weather contributed to make that bombing probably the most horrific ever conducted in Germany.  

But really the Hague and Geneva Conventions also pretty clearly proscribe targeting of general populations of the enemy too (as opposed to factories and logistical centers), and that was the greater violation of the Dresden bombing as I don't recall there was much military significance there.

However, Germany started the terror bombing of London and other English population centers, and the Japanese terror bombed the Chinese and others (as well as millions of outright civilian murders and rapes).

So we gave it back to them in spades, principally through the master Gen Curtis Lemay (I got to shake his hand once).  That World War was epic in scale, and the enemies so fanatically committed (excluding the Italians), that no one complained much about it.  And it was arguably necessary to end those wars on both fronts. (Or put another way, how many more hundred thousand dead would it have cost us to win without the bombing?)

Our two nukes in Japan were aimed mostly at population, though there were legitimate military targets in both regions.  The 2d bombing of Nagasaki, was a secondary target, as the primary target Kokura (a major military target) was cloud covered.  Though our earlier firebombing of nearly every city in Japan caused much more devastation than both nukes together.  And still their leadership did not want to quit.

Every single thing we did in Japan was fully justified in light of the fact that an amphibious assault on the homeland was slated to result in another million American dead, minimum. (We had already lost 111,606 dead and missing, and 253,142 wounded in the Pacific.  And China 4 million dead.)   

You'll notice that general population bombing has never happened again since WWII.  Not Korea, not RVN, and not the Middle East.  (But it's well our enemies know we have the ability to do it again)

-----------
As far as threatening Iran with bombing cultural sites, I have no problem with threatening them with anything at all under the sun.  It's BS small potatoes (tempest in a teapot).  If they had nukes in NYC and DC and Tel Aviv they wouldn't think twice about it.  Enemies like that deserve no quarter, and it is well they understand that.

[Robert]

I care not one twit about the Iranians.  My concern is for the integrity of our word.

Do you care enough and committed enough to eliminate the people who cause lack of integrity in our world, like some Iranians?

[Black Pearl's Captain]

Pompeo’s track record on dessiminating the truth is suspect at best. He stated for weeks if not months that he didn’t know about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian leader, when he was on the call to begin with.

I'll call you on that statement. Show me something where "He stated for weeks if not months that he didn’t know about Trump’s phone call". Your big rant in this thread has been about Trumps morals. I thinking your statement is not true and your morals are bad.

I voted for Pompeo when I lived in Kansas and close friends of mine worked at his companies and worked on his election campaign to the US Congress. I hope he stays in DC and I hope he runs for president when Trumps 8 years are over.

[..]

Chamberlain was a spineless POS.

[..]

I see Private Bicker is back on parade.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Pompeo’s track record on dessiminating the truth is suspect at best. He stated for weeks if not months that he didn’t know about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian leader, when he was on the call to begin with.

I'll call you on that statement. Show me something where "He stated for weeks if not months that he didn’t know about Trump’s phone call". Your big rant in this thread has been about Trumps morals. I thinking your statement is not true and your morals are bad.

I voted for Pompeo when I lived in Kansas and close friends of mine worked at his companies and worked on his election campaign to the US Congress. I hope he stays in DC and I hope he runs for president when Trumps 8 years are over.

I'm sorry you were betrayed with your vote. It must feel rotten.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/politics/mike-pompeo-ukraine/index.html


Another example for your viewing pleasure :

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/pompeo-lying-iran-soleimani-strike.html

I will put my morals up against the President's any day.

[Black Pearl's Captain]

Pompeo’s track record on dessiminating the truth is suspect at best. He stated for weeks if not months that he didn’t know about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian leader, when he was on the call to begin with.

I'll call you on that statement. Show me something where "He stated for weeks if not months that he didn’t know about Trump’s phone call". Your big rant in this thread has been about Trumps morals. I thinking your statement is not true and your morals are bad.

I voted for Pompeo when I lived in Kansas and close friends of mine worked at his companies and worked on his election campaign to the US Congress. I hope he stays in DC and I hope he runs for president when Trumps 8 years are over.

I'm sorry you were betrayed with your vote. It must feel rotten.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/politics/mike-pompeo-ukraine/index.html


Another example for your viewing pleasure :

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/pompeo-lying-iran-soleimani-strike.html

I will put my morals up against the President's any day.

Nope, your first statement is a plain lie. Not answering Raddatz is not stating he didn't know anything. It's called keeping your mouth shut.

I know you will never admit your statement is not correct so I guess your morals shine on away.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Pompeo’s track record on dessiminating the truth is suspect at best. He stated for weeks if not months that he didn’t know about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian leader, when he was on the call to begin with.

I'll call you on that statement. Show me something where "He stated for weeks if not months that he didn’t know about Trump’s phone call". Your big rant in this thread has been about Trumps morals. I thinking your statement is not true and your morals are bad.

I voted for Pompeo when I lived in Kansas and close friends of mine worked at his companies and worked on his election campaign to the US Congress. I hope he stays in DC and I hope he runs for president when Trumps 8 years are over.

I'm sorry you were betrayed with your vote. It must feel rotten.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/politics/mike-pompeo-ukraine/index.html


Another example for your viewing pleasure :

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/pompeo-lying-iran-soleimani-strike.html

I will put my morals up against the President's any day.

Nope, your first statement is a plain lie. Not answering Raddatz is not stating he didn't know anything. It's called keeping your mouth shut.

I know you will never admit your statement is not correct so I guess your morals shine on away.

Ah...."keeping your mouth shut" would be not saying anything about it. But, this is what he said ; "I think I saw a statement from the Ukrainian foreign minister." He was on the friggin call ! He knew exactly what the Ukranian leader said.


Like I said, his track record on the truth is suspect at best.

[scooperhsd]

Chamberlain was a spineless POS.

Yes he was. I think rather than put WWII off, he actually hastened it....