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."
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.
Is it possible that Donovan is trying to smarm up to the Dally person, in order to give her one?
Or is it much more mundane and they are simply both woolly-minded PC type liberals?
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.
Is it possible that Donovan is trying to smarm up to the Dally person, in order to give her one?
Or is it much more mundane and they are simply both woolly-minded PC type liberals?
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.
The issue had a lot to do with the Soviet presence in Far East and fears that Japan would become the 16th USSR Republic. Soviet role in the WW2 was most important - e.g. 90% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front and by 1945 Soviet army become quite strong. Some of the "Japanese Northern Territories" still went to Russia. I've been to these islands, the closest one is a swim away from Hokkaido. During the 2nd week of August 1945 Soviets occupied a large Japanese controlled territory, the size of Western Europe. Some historians argue that Japan would surrender shortly after that.
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? 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.
Which one, "whiners"?
I think "whiner" forms the bulk of Lee's vocabulary!! ;o)
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? 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.
Which one?
I think "whiner" forms the bulk of Lee's limited vocabulary! ;o)
(If this appears twice my apologies. I'm still trying to get used to Agent's latest release!) ;o)
"Chas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Larry Hodges said:
Lee Michaels 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? 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.
Which one, "whiners"?
I think "whiner" forms the bulk of Lee's vocabulary!! ;o)
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
What leads you to believe he's trolling, Donovan?
-- Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence." [email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
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
What leads you to believe he's trolling, Donovan?
-- Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence." [email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
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
What leads you to believe he's trolling, Donovan?
Because it's an inflammatory and silly statement. He's essentially echoing Osama bin Laden's point of view.
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
What leads you to believe he's trolling, Donovan?
Because it's an inflammatory and silly statement. He's essentially echoing Osama bin Laden's point of view.
On 09 Aug 2005 08:19:38 GMT, D*Z* <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
Quoted message said:
Dally said:
Larry Hodges said:
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.
The issue had a lot to do with the Soviet presence in Far East and fears that Japan would become the 16th USSR Republic. Soviet role in the WW2 was most important - e.g. 90% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front and by 1945 Soviet army become quite strong. Some of the "Japanese Northern Territories" still went to Russia. I've been to these islands, the closest one is a swim away from Hokkaido. During the 2nd week of August 1945 Soviets occupied a large Japanese controlled territory, the size of Western Europe. Some historians argue that Japan would surrender shortly after that.
Name one historian who says that. Nobody in their right mind would argue that. The Soviets were not going to invade Japan proper which would have been a prerequisite for a Japanese surrender. The Soviets didn't have the ability or the materiel for a naval invasion. Plus, a successful invasion to the north would have led to Soviet troops bottle up there due to geographical reasons and they never would have been able to assault Tokyo which would have been necessary for a Japanese surrender.
"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? 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.
Which one, "whiners"?
I think "whiner" forms the bulk of Lee's vocabulary!! ;o)
Ah, it's you John. How's your week so far?
No, haven't noticed any whining from Lee. I think you and David are the only ones that hear it. I don't recall ever hearing it. -- -Larry
"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll ourselves." Hugh Beyer
"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? 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.
Which one, "whiners"?
I think "whiner" forms the bulk of Lee's vocabulary!! ;o)
Ah, it's you John. How's your week so far?
No, haven't noticed any whining from Lee. I think you and David are the only ones that hear it. I don't recall ever hearing it. -- -Larry
"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll ourselves." Hugh Beyer
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Dopey censored said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
Donovan Rebbechi said:
On 2005-08-09, David Cohen <[email hidden]> wrote:
> 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
What leads you to believe he's trolling, Donovan?
Because it's an inflammatory and silly statement. He's essentially echoing Osama bin Laden's point of view.
So, because two persons both state "______ is my enemy", both statements have equal validity.
Can you even SEE the mainstream Left from your teetering on the Left edge of the World position?
Because it's an inflammatory and silly statement. He's essentially echoing Osama bin Laden's point of view.
So, because two persons both state "______ is my enemy", both statements have equal validity.
No, that's not what I said.
Delude yourself, leave me out of it.
Quoted message said:
My point is that you appear to agree with the methods of these terrorists.
Could you please clarify ?
Sure. You grant equal moral equivilance to my stating "the Japanese of 1945 were my enemy and I'm glad they died" or "Islamic fundamentalists are my enemy and I would like them to all die" with bin Laden's "Americans are my enemies and I want them to all die".
You see no difference. All positions are equally valid. There is no right or wrong.
Poster boy for moral subjectivism.
Quoted message said:
Do you or do you not condone the methods of people like suicide bombers, the 9/11 hijackers, etc (provided that they choose their "enemy" correctly) ?
Excellent. Make my case for me. I'll just sit down.
Because it's an inflammatory and silly statement. He's essentially echoing Osama bin Laden's point of view.
So, because two persons both state "______ is my enemy", both statements have equal validity.
No, that's not what I said.
Delude yourself, leave me out of it.
Quoted message said:
My point is that you appear to agree with the methods of these terrorists.
Could you please clarify ?
Sure. You grant equal moral equivilance to my stating "the Japanese of 1945 were my enemy and I'm glad they died" or "Islamic fundamentalists are my enemy and I would like them to all die" with bin Laden's "Americans are my enemies and I want them to all die".
You see no difference. All positions are equally valid. There is no right or wrong.
Poster boy for moral subjectivism.
Quoted message said:
Do you or do you not condone the methods of people like suicide bombers, the 9/11 hijackers, etc (provided that they choose their "enemy" correctly) ?
Excellent. Make my case for me. I'll just sit down.
Larry Hodges wrote: > 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.
The issue had a lot to do with the Soviet presence in Far East and fears that Japan would become the 16th USSR Republic. Soviet role in the WW2 was most important - e.g. 90% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front and by 1945 Soviet army become quite strong. Some of the "Japanese Northern Territories" still went to Russia. I've been to these islands, the closest one is a swim away from Hokkaido. During the 2nd week of August 1945 Soviets occupied a large Japanese controlled territory, the size of Western Europe. Some historians argue that Japan would surrender shortly after that.
Name one historian who says that. Nobody in their right mind would argue that.
I don't know "what would happen if..." re Japanese capitulation and neither do you. However that opinion among historians including Western is not uncommon. It's out there if you'd like to look it up.
