By Bones ( - 209.211.228.253) on Wednesday, December 15, 1999 - 08:54 pm:

You bet your ass we did, right on target, imagine that. Do YOU know why the US used them?
Because it saved over 1,000,000 US casualties. Read your history you idiot. It wasn't for the hell of
it!!!

I can safely assume then that you would support 100% nuking of Grozny. As you say, it's better to save lives of 100 000 soldiers and kill off 20000 civilians ("rebels" not included).

Fenriz

Svoloch,


You don't know how glad I am to hear you say that-
I'm not the only one who feels that way then?

Kim

Kim

What do you think about this statement? If you can read Russian then you can find this statement on www.lenta.ru
I'm a beet confused, on one side we have such media sources as CNN, BBC who say witnesses are saying the there was storm of the Grozny yet don't show any of the witnesses. On the other hand we have official army representatives who say nothing like this happened. Look at the www.kavkaz.org they report the same thing but we all know how reliable that source is. They even went farther, they said that Russian soldiers were forced to attack Grozny or face death. I'm sorry but I don't see this happening, if that was the case the media would be all over this and this war would have ended long time ago. I can bet that some western media visits this kavkas site once in a while and take their information from there. I just don't see any other way they would get such information.

Bones

Ok, www.kavkaz.org reported that five buses (with refugees) come under fire from Russian tanks. Let’s for a second assume that this is true and tomorrow Russian forces apologize for it by saying they “screwed up” this would mean that according to you that its’ all good and there is nothing else to be said. Are you telling me that at war such “screw ups” can be justified?

kim-san,
there's 'islam' and then there's assholes who
wanna extrapolate their concept of 'islam' into
telling other people what to do. forget it.

and yes, the word 'islam' could be replaced there
by a variety of other words.

and NONE of you people who claim to be speaking
for =koff= 'god' are EVER gonna tell me what to
do. EVER. i'll die honorably first. deal with it.

Igor:

The USA nuclear bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war with Japan to an end, at the cost of huge civilian losses. The "people of good will around the world" (those who lived in Russia before perestroyka will recognize the expression) are wringing their hands and condemning the "barbarous act".

The Allied total bombardments of *many* German cities fastened (less effectively) the end of the war with Germany, at the cost of many, many, many more civilian lives. "People of good will" - ? Not a peep.

What's the difference? Ah, but Hiroshima did not fit into Soviet plans...

I can respect consistent pacifisim (though it's likely to be suicidal). But you cannot have it both ways...

Bones -
"BTW Igor, approximately 170,000 Japanese died during both blasts"

*Total casualties* - dead AND injured were 135,000 in Hiroshima and 64,000 in Nagasaki. 66,000 had been killed by the blast in H,
39,000 in N. Many of the "injured" had developed the radiation sickness and died afterwards.
These numbers are horrendous enough. Not to argue anything, just to set the record straight...

Guys,

Wake up. Mark on the world map all the places of conflict or for that matter where a bomb goes off and do the demographics. The roots are so obvious. The media calls them Rebels(Star Wars jargon), from behind their smoke screens. Just look back once. What are all those 'Rebel' countries doing now? Afganisthan, breeding the likes of Bin Laden and blowing out our friends. Our Wash DC based hypocrites...very depressing.

Stan F.

kir y:
i can't see where dresden and hiroshima (or the
nazi bombardment of london, for that matter) are
relevant to this discussion.
the notion of "people of good will" would have
been radically, culturally different then as
opposed to now.

Svoloch,

Ok lets play journalist here.
If wanted to know what really happened, where would you start looking?

source? preferably someone who was there.
for balance both sides. Russians/Chechens.

Unbiased source? Ingushetians?
Corroboration? ????????????????

(Meanwhile your boss is breathing down your neck.)

Do you report and hope you've got it right- bias

Do you say nothing- cover-up, no story at home

Kim

I must make a point:
The entire development of the nuclear bomb and the studies conducted at Los Alamos were in response to european scientists declaring the possibity of Nazi Germany's development of a similar weapon. Also, many of the scientists were of direct European descent who had fled Europe. Third, the US used the bomb not only for an effort to end the war, but to make a statement to the rest of the world in the years to come. However, due to espionage and the development of the hydrogen bomb, the global leverage gained in this instance became eliminated. During WWII the "us or them" mentality reigned supreme. I'd say that if the Russians had our air power, they'd also have participated in the massive bombardment of Berlin. Actually, some people don't recognize this as being an integral part of the war. The economic infastructure to produce additional armaments was disabled permenetly by these continual air raids.
It's difficult to assemble an argument relating to this topic without considering the other parties involved. Would other countries keep this technology a secret? Hell, Russia's casualties in WWII (somewhere around 20 million) were partly a result of poor military strategy. Letters from members of the Wehmacht stated how thousands of Russians would die from charging directly towards machine gun fire.

By L'menexe ( - 205.188.200.42) on Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 10:13 am

the notion of "people of good will" would have
been radically, culturally different then as
opposed to now.

Kim Arx,
The relaying of "accurate" news reporting is a dilemma that affects all citizenry across the world. Many say misreporting is a tool of the West. However, I must disagree. Sources of news who have the capability of possessing large volumes of information have a higher tendency of becoming infiltrated by special interest (e.g. government and big business). This process is when journalism mutates into a form of PR (public relations). They are targeted for the sole reason of mass exposure. The fact is that this phenomenon has created a transformation of all news sources. This is done for the goal of reducing the total percentage of the populace that is categorized as the "informed public". You bring up a good response to the dilemma by revealing a desire to seek additional sources of information to increase the chances of a full evaluation of the given "facts". This is all we can do to achieve objectivity.

Svoloch,

Svoloch ( - 194.247.225.56) on Thursday, December 16, 1999 - 01:30 am:
Bones
Ok, www.kavkaz.org reported that five buses (with refugees) come under fire from Russian tanks. Let’s for a second assume that this is true and tomorrow Russian forces apologize for it by saying they “screwed up” this would mean that according to you that its’ all good and there is nothing else to be said. Are you telling me that at war such “screw ups” can be justified?

1) I never said it was "all good". What more do you want, more blood?

2) "Screw ups" are just that. Justifible, how can it be?

3) It was reported that some Russian soldiers had fired on civilians reentering Chechnya to bury a loved one. These soldiers killed the driver of the vehicle but after everything was said and done it was explained that the reason for the shooting was because the soldiers were scared and had been surprised. Justifible: No Understandable: Yes.

BTW: Have you ever spent time in the military? Just curious.

Where's the evidence of 25 tanks, 15 armoured vehicles and 300 Russian troops destroyed? Seems strange that not a single photograph, or even a name of a killed soldier was provided.