On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:57:06 -0400, "Lee Michaels" <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
Quoted message said:
"Larry Hodges" wrote
Quoted message 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? 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.
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:57:06 -0400, "Lee Michaels" <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
Quoted message said:
"Larry Hodges" wrote
Quoted message 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? 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.
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:28:36 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
Quoted message said:
Larry Hodges said:
Dally said:
Larry Hodges wrote:
>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?
Those Japanese civilians were training regularly for the invasion. It involved nearly every man, woman and child.
Quoted message said:
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.
Those children were being taught how to kill in those classrooms.
Quoted message said:
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.
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:28:36 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
Quoted message said:
Larry Hodges said:
Dally said:
Larry Hodges wrote:
>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?
Those Japanese civilians were training regularly for the invasion. It involved nearly every man, woman and child.
Quoted message said:
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.
Those children were being taught how to kill in those classrooms.
Quoted message said:
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.
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:21:25 -0500, Bob Mann <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
Quoted message said:
Larry Hodges said:
Would you suggest we take Japan with conventional means? Would that have been more compassionate?
As I said, based on the plans and projections, the invasion of Japan was scheduled to take over a year, fighting against an enemy who believed it better to die than be subjugated. Not just better but obligatory. (That is why they treated prisoners so badly, they would have expected the same) It was extpected that every last civilian would have died trying to defend the country and it is possible that millions of Japanese would have died either directly or indirectly.
I'm agreeing with Bob. There's been a lot of that lately. You can see footage of woman and children in Japan in 1945 training with rifles and spears for the upcoming invasion on the History Channel.
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:21:25 -0500, Bob Mann <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
Quoted message said:
Larry Hodges said:
Would you suggest we take Japan with conventional means? Would that have been more compassionate?
As I said, based on the plans and projections, the invasion of Japan was scheduled to take over a year, fighting against an enemy who believed it better to die than be subjugated. Not just better but obligatory. (That is why they treated prisoners so badly, they would have expected the same) It was extpected that every last civilian would have died trying to defend the country and it is possible that millions of Japanese would have died either directly or indirectly.
I'm agreeing with Bob. There's been a lot of that lately. You can see footage of woman and children in Japan in 1945 training with rifles and spears for the upcoming invasion on the History Channel.
I'm agreeing with Bob. There's been a lot of that lately. You can see footage of woman and children in Japan in 1945 training with rifles and spears for the upcoming invasion on the History Channel.
What about you? You ever shoot at human profile targets? Were you a boy scout learning self-defense and/or survival skills? Did you stockpile ammo in December, 1999 in case civilization fell on 1/1/00?
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:14:25 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
Quoted message said:
John Hanson said:
I'm agreeing with Bob. There's been a lot of that lately. You can see footage of woman and children in Japan in 1945 training with rifles and spears for the upcoming invasion on the History Channel.
What about you? You ever shoot at human profile targets?
Never as a boy.
Quoted message said:
Were you a boy scout learning self-defense and/or survival skills?
No, but what does that have to do with children about to partake in armed conflict training with weapons? When has the Boy Scouts ever taught children how to kill people?
Quoted message said:
Did you stockpile ammo in December, 1999 in case civilization fell on 1/1/00?
Of course not. Civilization wasn't going to fall on Y2K. I knew that. Besides, I've always had thousands of rounds of ammo for at least a decade at that point. I shoot a lot. That's why I took up reloading.
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:14:25 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
Quoted message said:
John Hanson said:
I'm agreeing with Bob. There's been a lot of that lately. You can see footage of woman and children in Japan in 1945 training with rifles and spears for the upcoming invasion on the History Channel.
What about you? You ever shoot at human profile targets?
Never as a boy.
Quoted message said:
Were you a boy scout learning self-defense and/or survival skills?
No, but what does that have to do with children about to partake in armed conflict training with weapons? When has the Boy Scouts ever taught children how to kill people?
Quoted message said:
Did you stockpile ammo in December, 1999 in case civilization fell on 1/1/00?
Of course not. Civilization wasn't going to fall on Y2K. I knew that. Besides, I've always had thousands of rounds of ammo for at least a decade at that point. I shoot a lot. That's why I took up reloading.
There are no civilians in inter-nation warfare. There's us, there's the enemy, and there's neutral countries that had better shut up and stay out of the way.
There are no civilians in inter-nation warfare. There's us, there's the enemy, and there's neutral countries that had better shut up and stay out of the way.
The point is they would not have surrendered with out it. Simple. It was either them or us. I'm glad we had the intestinal fortitude to choose as we did.
Glad as in, "wuhoo, a socially acceptable reason to slaughter some Japs!"? Or glad as in, "phew, this strategy saved a bunch of lives and lives are sacred and the balance - although terrible - went the right way by choosing to kill these particular 50,000."
Glad just doesn't seem to be the right term for describing the use of atomic weapons.
Dally
That's because you're a Liberal. I have no problem with it when it is called for. It was called for in WWII. -- -Larry
"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll ourselves." Hugh Beyer
The point is they would not have surrendered with out it. Simple. It was either them or us. I'm glad we had the intestinal fortitude to choose as we did.
Glad as in, "wuhoo, a socially acceptable reason to slaughter some Japs!"? Or glad as in, "phew, this strategy saved a bunch of lives and lives are sacred and the balance - although terrible - went the right way by choosing to kill these particular 50,000."
Glad just doesn't seem to be the right term for describing the use of atomic weapons.
Dally
That's because you're a Liberal. I have no problem with it when it is called for. It was called for in WWII. -- -Larry
"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll ourselves." Hugh Beyer
On 2005-08-08, Larry Hodges <[email hidden]> wrote: > Donovan Rebbechi wrote: >> On 2005-08-08, Larry Hodges <[email hidden]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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?
Poor choice of words. "Large scale slaughter of innocent people" would have been more accurate.
Cheers,
The point is they would not have surrendered with out it.
Yes, I think everyone understands your point. What you seem to have trouble comprehending is that your point is not relevant to Dally's point.
Cheers,
I understand her point. She "mourns" for our enemy that died, and considers it "murder" that we nuked them.
I don't on both accounts. -- -Larry
"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll ourselves." Hugh Beyer
On 2005-08-08, Larry Hodges <[email hidden]> wrote: > Donovan Rebbechi wrote: >> On 2005-08-08, Larry Hodges <[email hidden]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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?
Poor choice of words. "Large scale slaughter of innocent people" would have been more accurate.
Cheers,
The point is they would not have surrendered with out it.
Yes, I think everyone understands your point. What you seem to have trouble comprehending is that your point is not relevant to Dally's point.
Cheers,
I understand her point. She "mourns" for our enemy that died, and considers it "murder" that we nuked them.
I don't on both accounts. -- -Larry
"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll ourselves." Hugh Beyer
> 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.
Word. -- -Larry
"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll ourselves." Hugh Beyer
> 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.
Word. -- -Larry
"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll ourselves." Hugh Beyer
There are no civilians in inter-nation warfare. There's us, there's the enemy, and there's neutral countries that had better shut up and stay out of the way.
We nuked the enemy. The enemy died. Excellent.
You're on a roll, troll
You disagree with me, therefore, I am a troll.
Meeting of Egocentrics Anonymous, every Thursday, BE THERE!
There are no civilians in inter-nation warfare. There's us, there's the enemy, and there's neutral countries that had better shut up and stay out of the way.
We nuked the enemy. The enemy died. Excellent.
You're on a roll, troll
You disagree with me, therefore, I am a troll.
Meeting of Egocentrics Anonymous, every Thursday, BE THERE!
I'm glad we had the intestinal fortitude to choose as we did.
Glad as in, "wuhoo, a socially acceptable reason to slaughter some Japs!"? Or glad as in, "phew, this strategy saved a bunch of lives and lives are sacred and the balance - although terrible - went the right way by choosing to kill these particular 50,000."
"Some 70,000 people probably died as a result of initial blast, heat, and radiation effects. This included about twenty American airmen being held as prisoners in the city. By the end of 1945, because of the lingering effects of radioactive fallout and other after effects, the Hiroshima death toll was probably over 100,000. The five-year death total may have reached or even exceeded 200,000, as cancer and other long-term effects took hold."
