Re: Nuke 'Em Again!!

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob Mann said:

It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.

I take that as a given.

But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's something
you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You can't just
gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You have to stay
human even in the face of war.

Dally

Death is a fact of life, Dally. If you want to mourn for loss of life where
does it stop? You know that 23000 children in Africa die every day. Are you
also mourning for them? . I don't believe you are mourning at all. I think
you are an athletic hypocrite.

David said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob Mann said:

It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.

I take that as a given.

But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's something
you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You can't just
gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You have to stay
human even in the face of war.

Death is a fact of life, Dally. If you want to mourn for loss of life where
does it stop? You know that 23000 children in Africa die every day. Are you
also mourning for them? . I don't believe you are mourning at all. I think
you are an athletic hypocrite.

I'm a Massachusetts Liberal Jew. You can't fathom the depths of my
ability for self-flagellation.

I read the Economist, by the way. I know about starving children in
Africa. (I'm stunned that you know, though.)

Dally

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob Mann said:

It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.

I take that as a given.

But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's something
you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You can't just
gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You have to stay
human even in the face of war.

Dally

After you are through mourning for the civilians in Japan, and the holocaust
victims, then you can start mourning for the 400,000 German civilians who
were killed in WW2. Are you only mourning for those killed by Americans and
allies or can you extend your mourning to the victims of Pol Pot and Stalin
and Mao? Do you have an actual mourning policy or do you just mourn at
random?

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob Mann wrote:

>It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.

I take that as a given.

But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's something
you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You can't just
gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You have to stay
human even in the face of war.

Death is a fact of life, Dally. If you want to mourn for loss of life

where

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

does it stop? You know that 23000 children in Africa die every day. Are

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

also mourning for them? . I don't believe you are mourning at all. I

think

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you are an athletic hypocrite.

I'm a Massachusetts Liberal Jew. You can't fathom the depths of my
ability for self-flagellation.

I read the Economist, by the way. I know about starving children in
Africa. (I'm stunned that you know, though.)

Dally

Thanks, I actually considered sponsoring one of those kids but he died while
the cheque was being processed.

Dally said:

Bob Mann said:

It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.

I take that as a given.

But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's
something you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You
can't just gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You
have to stay human even in the face of war.

Dally

Dally, it continues to amaze me at how much in denial you are. But then
you're a liberal so I can't expect much more. How many times must you hear
that nuking Japan SAVED lives? I don't mourn it one bit. And the thing I'm
gleeful about is that we won the war, and with minimal allied casualties.
If the Japanese want to blame somebody, let them blame their leaders at the
time.
--
-Larry

"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
ourselves." Hugh Beyer

Dally said:

Bob Mann said:

It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.

I take that as a given.

But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's
something you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You
can't just gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You
have to stay human even in the face of war.

Dally

Dally, it continues to amaze me at how much in denial you are. But then
you're a liberal so I can't expect much more. How many times must you hear
that nuking Japan SAVED lives? I don't mourn it one bit. And the thing I'm
gleeful about is that we won the war, and with minimal allied casualties.
If the Japanese want to blame somebody, let them blame their leaders at the
time.
--
-Larry

"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
ourselves." Hugh Beyer

"Larry Hodges" wrote

Quoted message said:

Dally said:

Bob Mann said:

It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.

I take that as a given.

But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's
something you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You
can't just gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You
have to stay human even in the face of war.

Dally

Dally, it continues to amaze me at how much in denial you are. But then
you're a liberal so I can't expect much more. How many times must you
hear that nuking Japan SAVED lives? I don't mourn it one bit. And the
thing I'm gleeful about is that we won the war, and with minimal allied
casualties. If the Japanese want to blame somebody, let them blame their
leaders at the time.

Word.

And not only blame the leaders, but the culture. The Japanese were barbaric
savages. Something they will not admit to this day. something that all their
neighbors still fear. They remember their treatment at the hands of the
Japanese. Japan does not.

In fact, to this day, they deny that they commited the atrocities that they
did. Their textbooks don't mention them. And many Japanese do not even
know about the terrible atrocities commited by japanese troops during WWII.

And all this time, they keep whining about how they got a little A bomb
dropped on them.

What a bunch of whiners and pussies. And total hypocrites.

"Larry Hodges" wrote

Quoted message said:

Dally said:

Bob Mann said:

It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.

I take that as a given.

But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's
something you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You
can't just gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You
have to stay human even in the face of war.

Dally

Dally, it continues to amaze me at how much in denial you are. But then
you're a liberal so I can't expect much more. How many times must you
hear that nuking Japan SAVED lives? I don't mourn it one bit. And the
thing I'm gleeful about is that we won the war, and with minimal allied
casualties. If the Japanese want to blame somebody, let them blame their
leaders at the time.

Word.

And not only blame the leaders, but the culture. The Japanese were barbaric
savages. Something they will not admit to this day. something that all their
neighbors still fear. They remember their treatment at the hands of the
Japanese. Japan does not.

In fact, to this day, they deny that they commited the atrocities that they
did. Their textbooks don't mention them. And many Japanese do not even
know about the terrible atrocities commited by japanese troops during WWII.

And all this time, they keep whining about how they got a little A bomb
dropped on them.

What a bunch of whiners and pussies. And total hypocrites.

Larry Hodges said:

Dally said:

Bob Mann said:

It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.

I take that as a given.

But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's
something you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You
can't just gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You
have to stay human even in the face of war.

Dally

Dally, it continues to amaze me at how much in denial you are. But then
you're a liberal so I can't expect much more. How many times must you hear
that nuking Japan SAVED lives?

It also took lives. You keep skipping that part. People died.
Civilian lives were traded. Yes, it quite likely saved lives as well,
and that's why it was done, but it still cost something. It wasn't an
easy choice. The cost needs to be remembered and the fact that you keep
skipping that part is exactly why demonstrators need to take the streets
in August of every year.

I have to admit, I prefer the August demonstrations. The February one
for Abortion Rights is just too cold! I'm much happier with the summer
schedule of Liberal Protest Marches.

Dally

Dally said:

Larry Hodges said:

Dally said:

Bob Mann wrote:

> It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.

I take that as a given.

But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's
something you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You
can't just gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You
have to stay human even in the face of war.

Dally

Dally, it continues to amaze me at how much in denial you are. But
then you're a liberal so I can't expect much more. How many times
must you hear that nuking Japan SAVED lives?

It also took lives. You keep skipping that part.

I'm not skipping that part. But it was war. War kills people and breaks
things. Didn't you get the memo?

Quoted message said:

People died.
Civilian lives were traded.

There were no smart bombs back then. That is how war was waged at that
point in time. But the point is they never would've lost their lives if
their leaders hadn't started a war against us. Maybe they should be mad
with them?

Quoted message said:

Yes, it quite likely saved lives as well,
and that's why it was done, but it still cost something. It wasn't an
easy choice.

It was a simple choice. Our lives or theirs. Let me think....ummm...ok,
drop the bomb!

Quoted message said:

The cost needs to be remembered and the fact that you
keep skipping that part is exactly why demonstrators need to take the
streets in August of every year.

The fact that you keep skipping is that it ended the war and saved tens of
thousands of allied lives. How can you libs be so blind?

Quoted message said:

I have to admit, I prefer the August demonstrations. The February one
for Abortion Rights is just too cold! I'm much happier with the
summer schedule of Liberal Protest Marches.

Now if we could just get Roe vs.. Wade overturned....

Quoted message said:

Dally

--
-Larry

"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
ourselves." Hugh Beyer

In article <[email hidden]>,

Larry Hodges said:

Now if we could just get Roe vs.. Wade overturned....

We would be one step farther away from the creed of this country. One of
many reasons I can't vote Repub.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dally

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Larry Hodges said:

Now if we could just get Roe vs.. Wade overturned....

We would be one step farther away from the creed of this country. One of
many reasons I can't vote Repub.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dally

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Larry Hodges said:

Dally said:

Larry Hodges said:

Dally wrote:

>Bob Mann wrote:
>
>
>
>>It was the lesser of two very unpleasant scenarios.
>
>I take that as a given.
>
>But a bunch of people still died. Civilians. Horribly. It's
>something you have to REGRET doing. A loss you have to MOURN. You
>can't just gleefully kill thousands of people and call it even. You
>have to stay human even in the face of war.
>
>Dally

Dally, it continues to amaze me at how much in denial you are. But
then you're a liberal so I can't expect much more. How many times
must you hear that nuking Japan SAVED lives?

It also took lives. You keep skipping that part.

I'm not skipping that part. But it was war. War kills people and breaks
things. Didn't you get the memo?

Quoted message said:

People died.
Civilian lives were traded.

There were no smart bombs back then. That is how war was waged at that
point in time. But the point is they never would've lost their lives if
their leaders hadn't started a war against us. Maybe they should be mad
with them?

Quoted message said:

Yes, it quite likely saved lives as well,
and that's why it was done, but it still cost something. It wasn't an
easy choice.

It was a simple choice. Our lives or theirs. Let me think....ummm...ok,
drop the bomb!

Excuse me, I thought the choice had something to do with how many
Japanese would give their lives in the assault. Are you changing the terms?

But let's pretend that's the conversation: killing a bunch of civilians
versus risking soldier's lives in an invasion. An American soldier's
life versus a Japanese child in the classroom's life. This is simple to
you? Grow a heart. The rules of war aren't big on softening up the
enemy by bombing civilians and terrorizing them with the threat of more.
We condemn others (Al Quaida, for example) when they do that.

It's right and appropriate to regret killing civilians, even if you have
a reason for doing it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The cost needs to be remembered and the fact that you
keep skipping that part is exactly why demonstrators need to take the
streets in August of every year.

The fact that you keep skipping is that it ended the war and saved tens of
thousands of allied lives. How can you libs be so blind?

Not blind. I acknowledge that it quite probably did. I've started
where you've ended and go on to regret the loss of life necessary to
achieve that end.

It's called compassion. It's a virtue you apparently haven't even heard of.

Dally

Larry Hodges said:

A non issue. We were defending our Country, they were the aggressors. They
didn't want to surrender, so we did the only thing we could to win the war
without killing thousands of our guys.

Would you suggest we take Japan with conventional means?

No. No-one is saying that.

HTH.
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Larry Hodges said:

A non issue. We were defending our Country, they were the aggressors. They
didn't want to surrender, so we did the only thing we could to win the war
without killing thousands of our guys.

Would you suggest we take Japan with conventional means?

No. No-one is saying that.

HTH.
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Larry Hodges said:

A non issue. We were defending our Country, they were the
aggressors. They didn't want to surrender, so we did the only thing
we could to win the war without killing thousands of our guys.

Would you suggest we take Japan with conventional means?

No. No-one is saying that.

HTH.

Then why is Dally whining about the "murder" of the Japanese?
--
-Larry

"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
ourselves." Hugh Beyer

Larry Hodges said:

If she wants to be [censored] about it, let her be [censored] at the
Japanese leadership at the time. They were barbaric pieces of [censored].

I'm not [censored], I'm sad. I'm sad because my country found it necessary
to use atomic weapons on a civilian population. That's sad.

Whether you understand the reasons and applaud them or not, it is worth
remembering that good people, innocent people, non-aggressive people,
died in great numbers because of the bomb we dropped.

Dally

Larry Hodges said:

Then why is Dally whining about the "murder" of the Japanese?

Japanese non-combattants were deliberately targeted in their homes and
schools and hospitals.

Do you refer to the deaths on 9/11 as "murder"?

Dally

In article <[email hidden]>, Dally <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Larry Hodges said:

If she wants to be [censored] about it, let her be [censored] at the
Japanese leadership at the time. They were barbaric pieces of [censored].

I'm not [censored], I'm sad. I'm sad because my country found it necessary
to use atomic weapons on a civilian population. That's sad.

Whether you understand the reasons and applaud them or not, it is worth
remembering that good people, innocent people, non-aggressive people,
died in great numbers because of the bomb we dropped.

Dally

That hasn't changed.
We are still doing it even now.

It's called "war" and it sucks. :-P
It's not murder, at least not in the purist sense of the word.

I understand your feelings tho'.

One could only wish that every single human on the planet was
as compassionate as you. Then this [censored] would not be necessary anymore.

But, it was necessary.

Unfortunately.

Cheers!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson