Re: Nuke 'Em Again!!

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:33:02 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:

[If you want a reply to your private email to me you'll need to
provide a valid email return address. I have replied to the one you
provided but it may have bounced.]

Dally said:

JMW said:

As Sherman wrote to the Mayor of Atlanta, "War is cruelty, and you
cannot refine it." War is an ugly thing. Nevertheless, it is
sometimes necessary. Thankfully, crybabies like you are not chosen to
dictate war strategy.

So, in conclusion, it's okay to choose atomic weapons without comment or
oversight or pleading to remember innocent lives? Just trust the
leaders to do the right thing because war is ugly?

There's no room for women standing on street corners enjoining you to
remember the cost of war?

You can stand on the corner all you want, as long as you're not making
the strategic decisions.

Military actions that are terrible but decisive tend to save lives.
Consider it a major discount on the cost of war. That should appeal to
you.

Dally said:

JMW said:

As Sherman wrote to the Mayor of Atlanta, "War is cruelty, and you
cannot refine it." War is an ugly thing. Nevertheless, it is
sometimes necessary. Thankfully, crybabies like you are not chosen to
dictate war strategy.

So, in conclusion, it's okay to choose atomic weapons without comment or
oversight or pleading to remember innocent lives? Just trust the
leaders to do the right thing because war is ugly?

There's no room for women standing on street corners enjoining you to
remember the cost of war?

You can stand on the corner all you want, as long as you're not making
the strategic decisions.

Military actions that are terrible but decisive tend to save lives.
Consider it a major discount on the cost of war. That should appeal to
you.

In article <[email hidden]>,

JMW said:

Dally said:

JMW said:

As Sherman wrote to the Mayor of Atlanta, "War is cruelty, and you
cannot refine it." War is an ugly thing. Nevertheless, it is
sometimes necessary. Thankfully, crybabies like you are not chosen to
dictate war strategy.

So, in conclusion, it's okay to choose atomic weapons without comment or
oversight or pleading to remember innocent lives? Just trust the
leaders to do the right thing because war is ugly?

There's no room for women standing on street corners enjoining you to
remember the cost of war?

You can stand on the corner all you want, as long as you're not making
the strategic decisions.

Military actions that are terrible but decisive tend to save lives.
Consider it a major discount on the cost of war. That should appeal to
you.

The thing is, how many innocent lives are too many?
Do we really have the "right" to say who lives and who dies?

I have a real problem with "strategic" numbers policies.
When a human being becomes a stotistic, that is just, well, wrong.

Do you really want direct family members (your own children perhaps) to
be included in those statistics?

It's all ok until it comes home........

Let's see Bush get his daughters to enlist.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the necessary decisions made in these
types of situations, but that does not mean I have to like it. :-(
--
Om.

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

JMW said:

Dally said:

JMW said:

As Sherman wrote to the Mayor of Atlanta, "War is cruelty, and you
cannot refine it." War is an ugly thing. Nevertheless, it is
sometimes necessary. Thankfully, crybabies like you are not chosen to
dictate war strategy.

So, in conclusion, it's okay to choose atomic weapons without comment or
oversight or pleading to remember innocent lives? Just trust the
leaders to do the right thing because war is ugly?

There's no room for women standing on street corners enjoining you to
remember the cost of war?

You can stand on the corner all you want, as long as you're not making
the strategic decisions.

Military actions that are terrible but decisive tend to save lives.
Consider it a major discount on the cost of war. That should appeal to
you.

The thing is, how many innocent lives are too many?
Do we really have the "right" to say who lives and who dies?

I have a real problem with "strategic" numbers policies.
When a human being becomes a stotistic, that is just, well, wrong.

Do you really want direct family members (your own children perhaps) to
be included in those statistics?

It's all ok until it comes home........

Let's see Bush get his daughters to enlist.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the necessary decisions made in these
types of situations, but that does not mean I have to like it. :-(
--
Om.

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

JMW said:

Dally said:

JMW said:

As Sherman wrote to the Mayor of Atlanta, "War is cruelty, and you
cannot refine it." War is an ugly thing. Nevertheless, it is
sometimes necessary. Thankfully, crybabies like you are not chosen to
dictate war strategy.

So, in conclusion, it's okay to choose atomic weapons without comment or
oversight or pleading to remember innocent lives? Just trust the
leaders to do the right thing because war is ugly?

There's no room for women standing on street corners enjoining you to
remember the cost of war?

You can stand on the corner all you want, as long as you're not making
the strategic decisions.

Military actions that are terrible but decisive tend to save lives.
Consider it a major discount on the cost of war. That should appeal to
you.

Yes, it appeals to me to kill the lowest number of people. Good guess.
(It's the Scottish side of me being thrifty, no doubt.)

I've been pretty careful about not critiquing the military strategies.
I'm just advocating for remembering the cost, factoring the cost,
abhorring the cost. I really try not to second-guess generals (or cops,
or whatever) in the field under fire. But when the fighting is over and
you start counting the dead you've really GOT to have a dialogue on what
is and isn't acceptable practices moving forward.

I'm going to go right out on a limb and suggest that bombing civilian
populations with atomic weapons is bad.

Go ahead, call me a Radical.

Dally

JMW said:

Dally said:

JMW said:

As Sherman wrote to the Mayor of Atlanta, "War is cruelty, and you
cannot refine it." War is an ugly thing. Nevertheless, it is
sometimes necessary. Thankfully, crybabies like you are not chosen to
dictate war strategy.

So, in conclusion, it's okay to choose atomic weapons without comment or
oversight or pleading to remember innocent lives? Just trust the
leaders to do the right thing because war is ugly?

There's no room for women standing on street corners enjoining you to
remember the cost of war?

You can stand on the corner all you want, as long as you're not making
the strategic decisions.

Military actions that are terrible but decisive tend to save lives.
Consider it a major discount on the cost of war. That should appeal to
you.

Yes, it appeals to me to kill the lowest number of people. Good guess.
(It's the Scottish side of me being thrifty, no doubt.)

I've been pretty careful about not critiquing the military strategies.
I'm just advocating for remembering the cost, factoring the cost,
abhorring the cost. I really try not to second-guess generals (or cops,
or whatever) in the field under fire. But when the fighting is over and
you start counting the dead you've really GOT to have a dialogue on what
is and isn't acceptable practices moving forward.

I'm going to go right out on a limb and suggest that bombing civilian
populations with atomic weapons is bad.

Go ahead, call me a Radical.

Dally

Don said:

Truman called Hiroshima a military base.

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first
attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians."
Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (New
York: Vintage Books, 1995),

I don't see why Truman didn't first bomb a military base.

In the 2004 movie "The Fog of War," Robert McNamara said the United
States would have been guilty of war crimes if it had lost the war.
McNamara was involved in the U.S. effort against Japan under the
command of Gen. Curtis LeMay and later became U.S. secretary of
defense.

In just about any war someone will be guilty of committing war crimes on
both sides, and only the losers will be tried. But if you're looking for a
most likely Allied candidate Bomber Harris would be a better choice than
Truman.

Peter

Don said:

Truman called Hiroshima a military base.

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first
attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians."
Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (New
York: Vintage Books, 1995),

I don't see why Truman didn't first bomb a military base.

In the 2004 movie "The Fog of War," Robert McNamara said the United
States would have been guilty of war crimes if it had lost the war.
McNamara was involved in the U.S. effort against Japan under the
command of Gen. Curtis LeMay and later became U.S. secretary of
defense.

In just about any war someone will be guilty of committing war crimes on
both sides, and only the losers will be tried. But if you're looking for a
most likely Allied candidate Bomber Harris would be a better choice than
Truman.

Peter

Quoted message said:

Go ahead, call me a Radical.

Not only that - you're a free Radical - keep taking nthe vitamin C

Ray

Quoted message said:

Go ahead, call me a Radical.

Not only that - you're a free Radical - keep taking nthe vitamin C

Ray

Dally said:

JMW said:

Dally said:

JMW wrote:

>As Sherman wrote to the Mayor of Atlanta, "War is cruelty, and you
>cannot refine it." War is an ugly thing. Nevertheless, it is
>sometimes necessary. Thankfully, crybabies like you are not chosen to
>dictate war strategy.

So, in conclusion, it's okay to choose atomic weapons without comment or
oversight or pleading to remember innocent lives? Just trust the
leaders to do the right thing because war is ugly?

There's no room for women standing on street corners enjoining you to
remember the cost of war?

You can stand on the corner all you want, as long as you're not making
the strategic decisions.

Military actions that are terrible but decisive tend to save lives.
Consider it a major discount on the cost of war. That should appeal to
you.

Yes, it appeals to me to kill the lowest number of people. Good guess.
(It's the Scottish side of me being thrifty, no doubt.)

I've been pretty careful about not critiquing the military strategies.
I'm just advocating for remembering the cost, factoring the cost,
abhorring the cost. I really try not to second-guess generals (or cops,
or whatever) in the field under fire. But when the fighting is over and
you start counting the dead you've really GOT to have a dialogue on what
is and isn't acceptable practices moving forward.

I'm going to go right out on a limb and suggest that bombing civilian
populations with atomic weapons is bad.

Go ahead, call me a Radical.

We wiped out more civilian populations in carpet-bombing 64 Japanese
cities than we did in dropping anything containing uranium or
plutonium (one each). The thermonuclear weapons scared the Japanese
and made the Soviets back off. The reasons for dropping those bombs
was as much about shaping the post-war world as it was about ending
the war. The same can be said about Sherman's March. Get over it.