Out of the Ashes
Cerberus
Gay, flew over the city of Hiroshima on the south-western coast of Japan's
Honshu Island and dropped a single, stubby, black-painted bomb that its
creators had nicknamed "Little Boy". Less than a minute later, at 8.15am,
the bomb exploded 580 metres above the city's Shima Hospital.
The 4000°C blast incinerated everything and everyone in close proximity to
its hypocentre. It generated a deadly, superheated wind that raced inland
like a radiation-laden tidal bore, flattening nearly every structure within
a 2km radius, scorching the earth, and literally flaying the skin of every
living thing exposed to it. Then it struck the foothills of the Chugoku
mountains to the north of the city. Like a vicious rip, the wind reversed
its direction and swept back to lay waste to whatever was left standing.
Even from high above, the devastation was shocking. Watching the billowing
mushroom of fire, radioactive dust and smoke, the Enola Gay's co-pilot,
Robert Lewis, was moved to write in his journal: "My God, what have we
done?"
No one is certain how many people died. The initial explosion killed tens of
thousands but the real attrition came in the months afterwards when as many
as 140,000 of Hiroshima's pre-bomb population of 310,000 succumbed to severe
burns and radiation-related illnesses. By the end of the year, the world's
first atomic attack had killed about 200,000 people.
Visiting Hiroshima for the first time, the impulse to seek out any signs of
the bomb is irresistible. There is the totem of bomb-like cylindrical marble
fragments half-buried at different angles that greets one at the entrance to
the airport, and there are countless small plaques and stone markers around
the city. There are the yellow tags that indicate the gnarled, stunted
trees, mostly Australian eucalypts and wattles, that still survive, 58 years
on, within a kilometre of the hypocentre. There are the few buildings that
were not reduced to carbonised rubble, including the bunker-like Bank of
Japan on Rijyo-dori and the skeletal remains of the World Heritage-listed
Hiroshima Industrial Promotions Hall, the dome of which, stripped to bare
iron girders by the blast, is arguably the best-recognised symbol of the
city. And there is the city's Peace Park, in which larger monuments and
memorials, and an emotionally charged museum, are laid out across a wooded
island splitting the Motoyasu River where it flows beneath what was, on that
fateful morning, the ground zero of the blast.
The bomb is embedded deep within the psyche of Hiroshima. But there is no
escaping the somewhat pragmatic dismissiveness that underscores most local
references to it. The ruins of the Industrial Promotions Hall are known
simply as "the bomb dome", just as the annual commemoration on August 6 is
"bomb day". It's as if, lacking any adequate way of coming to terms with the
event's persistent dreadfulness, let alone of understanding the impenetrable
ambiguities of what caused it, successive generations of Hiroshima's
residents have tried to diminish it in their collective subconscious.
For a long time, they were intent only on overcoming its devastation. Among
the most moving exhibits in the A-bomb museum are photographs of people
trying to resurrect their lives from the smouldering and still deadly ashes.
Being Japanese, they began by restoring structure: within two days,
kindergarten children had donned their uniforms to kneel on tatami mats in
makeshift open-air classes, and clerks at banks and post offices manned
splintered counters. Before the end of 1945, homes were being rebuilt, and
small stores had re-opened. And somehow, during the next 58 years, Hiroshima
avoided the blight of haphazard, poorly planned and corruptly regulated
development that, in the post-war years, turned most Japanese cities into
densely populated, overbuilt, industrial ghettoes. It managed to retain,
well, some breathing room. Hiroshima is small by Japanese standards. With a
population of just less than 1.5 million people, it helps that its urban
sprawl is bound by exceptional natural beauty.
Hiroshima is built on a delta formed by six rivers flowing south into the
Seto Inland Sea. Stone bridges span tree-lined banks, and there are
unexpected man-made canals and walled-in boat shelters. From most parts of
the city, you can see the densely forested slopes of the Chugoku mountains.
And from the higher floors of office blocks and hotels, the steep, serrated
peaks of shark-tooth-like islands, which are strewn like ancient runes far
south into the Pacific Ocean and west towards the Sea of Japan to form a
jigsaw of protected straits and passages, are visible. At dusk, the islands
recede like ghosts into the mist, their shadowy contours resembling the
ink-wash monochromes of traditional sumi-e.
The complete destruction of the city allowed it to be reconceived and
rebuilt with an atypical sense of space. The city centre is cinctured by
boulevards that are almost Parisian in breadth, notably the Heiwa-odori, or
Peace Boulevard, divided by tree-shaded centre islands, and the Rijyo-dori,
which crosses it to run straight to the moat surrounding the ruins of the
famed "carp castle" built in 1589 by the feudal lord, Terumoto Mori, and
named for the giant, multicoloured koi which still guard the moat.
Crossing Rijyo-dori, the Hondori, a long, covered pedestrian precinct lined
with shops and restaurants which has been the main artery of central
Hiroshima's commercial and social life for 300 years. Hondori has yet to
overcome a parochial sociability which gives the downtown area an almost
village-like atmosphere. Beneath the city's main shopping boulevards, there
is another city: part subway system, part underground mall and food market,
the Shareo runs under most of the city centre, and it doesn't take a huge
conceptual leap to interpret it as a coolly atavistic experiment in
self-preservation by a community determined to be ready for whatever traumas
might befall it in the future. Few of Hiroshima's residents today are even r
emotely connected to, let alone acquainted with, survivors of the bomb, but
the survivors are still visible: the elderly who, in the middle of summer,
cover themselves from head to toe, wrapping their faces with scarves and
wearing long gloves, long-sleeve shirts, wide-brimmed hats and dark,
wrap-around sunglasses. In other words, the apocalypse is still now.
I often sit on the wide stone steps leading down from Peace Park to the
murky eddies of the Motoyasu River. In the days after the bomb, hundreds,
maybe even thousands, of people dived from the walled embankments of
Hiroshima's rivers with the desperate misapprehension that the waters would
soothe their searing radiation burns. But the rivers were more deadly than
the earth, swirling with gamma rays and neutrons that amplified the burning
and accelerated death. The whole delta echoed with agonised screams and the
waters became clogged with bodies.
Now the tree-lined banks are silent. At weekends, at low tide, children play
on the muddy banks and young families picnic atop the sandstone embankments.
Flat-bottomed tourist vessels stem the tide around Peace Park so their
passengers can photograph the "bomb dome". And in the grey-green waters are
the reflections of modern offices, apartment blocks and hotels, the baseball
stadium, brightly lit restaurants and modest memorials that attest to the
city's resilience.
The City of Peace survived a horrific, almost incomprehensible destruction,
and a dreadful instant in which a centuries-old faith in the continuity of
human existence – and, arguably, the very meaning of history – was
obliterated. Whatever the reasons for it, it was an infamous inhumanity. But
the city's rebirth over the past 58 years demonstrates the irrepressible
hope that defines the best of our humanity. In these troubled times, we
should reflect on that.
--
WooF w00f WooF
Jigsaw1695
<Cerberus> wrote in message news:3f309...@127.0.0.1...
> On August 6, 1945, a United States Air Force B29 Superfortress, the Enola
> Gay, flew over the city of Hiroshima on the south-western coast of Japan's
> Honshu Island and dropped a single, stubby, black-painted bomb that its
> creators had nicknamed "Little Boy". Less than a minute later, at 8.15am,
> the bomb exploded 580 metres above the city's Shima Hospital.
>
> obliterated. Whatever the reasons for it, it was an infamous inhumanity.
But
> the city's rebirth over the past 58 years demonstrates the irrepressible
> hope that defines the best of our humanity. In these troubled times, we
> should reflect on that.
>
Who wrote this?
A Planet Visitor
Thanks for that rather unbiased presentation of the destructive force of the bomb
and the rebirth process of Hiroshima (although 'infamous inhumanity' is a
relative and totally subjective view of various events of WW II). I am perhaps
the only poster in this group who has actually spoken at length, on a number of
occasions, in totally non-moderated situations (most often being a bit under
the influence), with the actual survivors of the atomic bomb detonated on
Nagasaki. Most now probably long dead. My experience was based on being
stationed as a young man, at Itazuke AB, on Kyushu, located about 50 miles
from Nagasaki, for two years during 1959-1960. If you wish, you can see my
relating my experience in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=DNVM5.3603%24Ze6.423639%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
My not actually speaking the Japanese language leaves a lot more to be imagined
than can be stated as fact. My girlfriend acted as the 'translator' to my questions.
and the answers, regarding how the actual survivors felt about the use of the bomb.
Obviously, her questions to them, and their replies to me might have been shaded
by her own wish to not delve too deeply into the psyche surrounding those actual
survivors, and the rather informal setting which might have otherwise become
volatile, which she might have recognized and I did not. In any case, much
of the talk was not under conditions of total sobriety on the part of anyone there.
Whether that provided for more 'openness' is a matter of conjecture. And
whether my 'experience' means anything to anyone else, is totally irrelevant...
since it served to form the opinion I have reached long ago, which has never
changed: That the use of the Atomic Bomb functioned to save more lives than
not using it would have cost. Others are welcome to their own opinion.
PV
>--
>
>WooF w00f WooF
>
Hugh Neary
Who read it to you?
HN
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:52:57 GMT, "Jigsaw1695"
><jigsa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip lengthy article]
>>==================================================================
>>
>>Who wrote this?
>>
> Who read it to you?
That was harsh, Hugh. Hilarious, yes, but harsh.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Cerberus
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:ht93jvssgemc9706d...@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:38:27 +0800, <Cerberus> wrote:
:
{snip article}
: >
: Thanks for that rather unbiased presentation of the destructive force of
the bomb
: and the rebirth process of Hiroshima (although 'infamous inhumanity' is a
: relative and totally subjective view of various events of WW II). I am
perhaps
: the only poster in this group who has actually spoken at length, on a
number of
: occasions, in totally non-moderated situations (most often being a bit
under
: the influence), with the actual survivors of the atomic bomb detonated on
: Nagasaki. Most now probably long dead. My experience was based on being
: stationed as a young man, at Itazuke AB, on Kyushu, located about 50 miles
: from Nagasaki, for two years during 1959-1960. If you wish, you can see
my
: relating my experience in --
:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=DNVM5.3603%24Ze6.423639%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
Thanks for that.
:
: My not actually speaking the Japanese language leaves a lot more to be
imagined
: than can be stated as fact. My girlfriend acted as the 'translator' to my
questions.
: and the answers, regarding how the actual survivors felt about the use of
the bomb.
: Obviously, her questions to them, and their replies to me might have been
shaded
: by her own wish to not delve too deeply into the psyche surrounding those
actual
: survivors, and the rather informal setting which might have otherwise
become
: volatile, which she might have recognized and I did not. In any case,
much
: of the talk was not under conditions of total sobriety on the part of
anyone there.
: Whether that provided for more 'openness' is a matter of conjecture. And
: whether my 'experience' means anything to anyone else, is totally
irrelevant...
: since it served to form the opinion I have reached long ago, which has
never
: changed: That the use of the Atomic Bomb functioned to save more lives
than
: not using it would have cost. Others are welcome to their own opinion.
What a facinating experience this must have been for you. And in 1959 as
well, just fourteen years after the event. The original effects of the bomb
would have still been evident, as a matter of fact there must have still
been a lot of radioactivity around. Are you sure that you don't glow in the
dark?. Unlike you I have never had the opportunity to converse directly with
the survivors, despite having a reasonable command of the language. The
opportunity never presented itself, and I guess the survivors have been
pretty well bailed up by the press and the Discovery channel over the years.
It just dosen't feel right to intrude on their privacy and they carry a
dignity in their mannerisms, dress and attitude that is hard to describe,
and needs to be witnessed to be understood.
As far as the wisdom of detonating 2 nuclear devices above defenceless
cities is concerned, and the consequent rationalisation that follows, I feel
that the argument may have been better served if the USAF had picked targets
that could be even vaguely associated with the military. I know that
Nagasaki was a 'target of Opportunity' after the original target (which I
believe to be military) was ruled out because of cloud cover. Killing nearly
four hundred thousand people in the span of three days, could certainly be
called overkill.
As to the number of lives that could have been saved by the use of these
weapons?, How will anyone ever know? Just about every US citizen that I
talk to on this matter seems to have much the same opinion as you. There
seems to be a collective inferiority complex. Much like the adolescent boy
whose voice has changed mid sentence. All he wants to do is cringe, whilst
his mind is saying "fuck did I do that?, that felt good, is this a sign that
I am coming of age?, does this mean that I am starting to be important on
the world stage?" If you think about it, this are the first of the salad
days of the"American Era" I just hope to God that the 'great American
public' has the sense to get rid of that abortion in a bucket that occupies
your country's presidency, before he really gets you in the manure.
We could go on forever PV, but its all been said before.
Anarchy and Revolution are the only answers.
Civil war anyone?
--
WooF w00f WooF
foo
<snip>
>: My not actually speaking the Japanese language leaves a lot more to be
>imagined than can be stated as fact. My girlfriend acted as the 'translator' to my
>questions. and the answers, regarding how the actual survivors felt about the use of
>the bomb. Obviously, her questions to them, and their replies to me might have been
>shaded by her own wish to not delve too deeply into the psyche surrounding those
>actual....."
Many years ago I had the privilige of visiting the Trinity test site.
A once annual tour used to be offered by the Alamogordo Chamber of
Commerce, but my occassion to have been there was while in support of
WSMR.
Despite having been built by "Lazy, illiterate americans" the device
functioned as intended and was subsequently deployed successfully in
each iteration.
One of the articles I accumulated years ago makes reference to a
self-guided tour of Hiroshima which, in it's japanese version "masks
the acts of the aggressors which lead up to the war," yet in english
makes it quite plain.
Truman at least deserves to be remembered in history for saving both
japanese and american lives. Without him, we wouldn't be driving
Nissans, Hondas or watching Sony televisions for at least another
forty or fifty years.
Hugh Neary
<necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
SNIP
>
>Truman at least deserves to be remembered in history for saving both
>japanese and american lives. Without him, we wouldn't be driving
>Nissans, Hondas or watching Sony televisions for at least another
>forty or fifty years.
Wow this put's a new light on thing doesn't it. All those poor cretins
splattered all over their cities, cooked, riddled with cancer poisoned
for generations. It was all worth it though because a few fat bloated
Americans can park their backsides in front of the TV, or transport
their lard ridden carcasses to Mc Donalds.
'Trouble is, now the Iraqis have to be culled in order to keep
all that lard mobile :-(
HN
foo
wrote:
Hugh,
It's important to have a sense of perspective about these things,
isn't it?
"Yoshio Sakurauchi, speaker of Japan's lower house of parliament,
described U.S. workers as lazy and illiterate. "I have long thought
[Americans] lack a work ethic," Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi
Miyazawa said."
Imagine if Bush had said something like that?
Darn.
That would be like, you know, bad or something. You suppose the
japanese voted him out or something after a remark like that? Or is
their intense nationalism and cultural xenophobia still entrenched so
deep even a nuke can't reach it?
Hugh Neary
I'm afraid I'm not to well aquainted with the Japanese political
system, but quite a few British politicians, not to mention royalty
have dropped similar "clangers". A polititian in the cabinet would be
a little more "political" with his insults though.
Difficult to comment or relate to that particular quote BTW,
I do get the impression that most of the world would disagree that
Americans are idle. However as for the educational abilities of the
average American, it doesn't say much when they pick Bush as their
leader does it?
BTW The cheap crummy TV programs designed to entertain in the US are
hardly any pointer to the intellectual ability of the viewer are they?
HN
A Planet Visitor
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:07:55 GMT, foo
><necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><snip>
>SNIP
>>
>>Truman at least deserves to be remembered in history for saving both
>>japanese and american lives. Without him, we wouldn't be driving
>>Nissans, Hondas or watching Sony televisions for at least another
>>forty or fifty years.
>
>Wow this put's a new light on thing doesn't it. All those poor cretins
>splattered all over their cities, cooked, riddled with cancer poisoned
>for generations. It was all worth it though because a few fat bloated
>Americans can park their backsides in front of the TV, or transport
>their lard ridden carcasses to Mc Donalds.
>
He was speaking of the Japanese, you illiterate. And their resurgent
economy which has been exported to the U.S., in return for U.S.
dollars I might remind you. We did not steal those products as the
Russians have stolen the Kurile islands from Japan. One must realize
that at the end of the war, there were numerous noodle-vendors
operating on the streets in the Ginza, in the heart of Tokyo, and in
the central downtown of other large cities, who owned the land they
sold their noodles from. They and their families later became
multi-millionaires in owning that very valuable property. If the war
had continued, then perhaps today... they would now still be
selling those noodles.
Whether you or anyone accepts this, it is most certain in my mind,
that the use of the Atomic Bomb was the best thing that ever happened
to the Japanese, and perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to the
U.S. They end up with all the pity... and all the money... and all the
gains in Japanese life, and other physical resources that a protracted
war would have taken away from them.(had Russia entered the war
and stayed in it longer, I have no doubt that Hokkaido Island
would now be part of Russia). Japan would have been partially
dismembered. While the U.S. ends up as a nation that 'committed an
atrocity against the 'poor peace-loving Japanese,' who had slaughtered
million upon million of Chinese, Korean and other nation civilians quite
indiscriminately, and managed to hide that slaughter from the
school-books of the new generation of children following the war, for
a long time. While not at all hiding the U.S. use of the bomb.
I see the slaughter of so many Chinese and Koreans to approach
the holocaust, with the only difference being the 'mechanical precision'
that the Nazis brought to the holocaust. Which makes it in my mind
the worst atrocity of all time. While if we had not used the bomb,
we would have been resolved to not negotiate one tiny bit with
Japan, as our military losses mounted. Culminating with the collapse
of the entire structure of Japanese life, which revolves around the
Emperor - which would not exist today, since we would never have
negotiated his remaining in power once a ground invasion had begun
and our military losses mounted. Nor would we have been as
'forgiving' in such a surrender, given those new military losses we
would have sustained. We would have, IMHO, extracted the
last drop of blood from the Japanese culture, and absorbed their
resources for a long time in retaliation for those new military losses
in any sustained ground invasion. And we would at this moment
certainly be in a more favorable position vis a vis the Japanese/U.S.
economic situation.
The BOMB!!! The best thing that ever happened to Japan. One
only has to look at it, and its people today. It has become prosperous
beyond anyone's wildest expectations, and its people have totally
renounced military aggression, and become a peaceful people.
It remained intact as a nation, as a culture, and as a people. One
wonders if they would be peaceful today, had we not used
the bomb, and instead ended up killing million upon million of
Japanese in a land invasion, placed the Emperor on trial,
and possibly executed him. I think that a war-like attitude would
still exist, while the bomb provided a knock-out blow to it, in a
single instant.
> 'Trouble is, now the Iraqis have to be culled in order to keep
>all that lard mobile :-(
>
Hugh's words in respect for his fellow man --
"One wonders if Adolf didn't have a point all those years ago!" See
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=etpetsgdi8qbge6738onj0lgbpconsd99g%404ax.com
Apparently he finds nothing wrong with the holocaust, nor the slaughter
of millions. Can anyone other than me, see the hypocrisy of Hugh
Neary??
PV
>HN
>
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
snip
> Apparently he finds nothing wrong with the holocaust, nor the slaughter
> of millions. Can anyone other than me, see the hypocrisy of Hugh
> Neary??
>
> PV
I really would have a check made on your computer
or ISP. You are obviously missing my posts.
Hugh Neary
wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 10:19:02 +0100, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:07:55 GMT, foo
>><necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>SNIP
>>>
>>>Truman at least deserves to be remembered in history for saving both
>>>japanese and american lives. Without him, we wouldn't be driving
>>>Nissans, Hondas or watching Sony televisions for at least another
>>>forty or fifty years.
>>
>>Wow this put's a new light on thing doesn't it. All those poor cretins
>>splattered all over their cities, cooked, riddled with cancer poisoned
>>for generations. It was all worth it though because a few fat bloated
>>Americans can park their backsides in front of the TV, or transport
>>their lard ridden carcasses to Mc Donalds.
>>
>He was speaking of the Japanese, you illiterate.
Oh! that makes it all right then?
'Makes no difference you moron!
Supposition snipped!!
>
>> 'Trouble is, now the Iraqis have to be culled in order to keep
>>all that lard mobile :-(
>>
>Hugh's words in respect for his fellow man --
>
>"One wonders if Adolf didn't have a point all those years ago!" See
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=etpetsgdi8qbge6738onj0lgbpconsd99g%404ax.com
>
>Apparently he finds nothing wrong with the holocaust, nor the slaughter
>of millions. Can anyone other than me, see the hypocrisy of Hugh
>Neary??
>
The old chestnut! Please don't try to pre-empt my support for one of
Adolfs pastimes.
HN
Earl Evleth
Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 10:19:02 +0100, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:07:55 GMT, foo
>> <necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
>
>
> Whether you or anyone accepts this, it is most certain in my mind,
> that the use of the Atomic Bomb was the best thing that ever happened
> to the Japanese, and perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to the
> U.S.
Curious, do you feel the the Japanese agree with you or is this
another unilateral American decision?
I also doubt whether you`ll get many takers in Japan. Likewise
in the USA with regard to the worse thing that happened to the nation.
> The BOMB!!! The best thing that ever happened to Japan.
You repeated yourself or did you already forget what you had
written?
Earl
A Planet Visitor
>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:42:58 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 10:19:02 +0100, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:07:55 GMT, foo
>>><necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>Truman at least deserves to be remembered in history for saving both
>>>>japanese and american lives. Without him, we wouldn't be driving
>>>>Nissans, Hondas or watching Sony televisions for at least another
>>>>forty or fifty years.
>>>
>>>Wow this put's a new light on thing doesn't it. All those poor cretins
>>>splattered all over their cities, cooked, riddled with cancer poisoned
>>>for generations. It was all worth it though because a few fat bloated
>>>Americans can park their backsides in front of the TV, or transport
>>>their lard ridden carcasses to Mc Donalds.
>>>
>>He was speaking of the Japanese, you illiterate.
>
>Oh! that makes it all right then?
>
No... it simply makes you illiterate.
>
>'Makes no difference you moron!
>
>Supposition snipped!!
>
Of course... But I feel that my comments were quite insightful. And apparently
you were unable to address even one point, and simply snipped everything.
So... once again... as I have had to do with many who presume to simply
clip my comments and believe that is sufficient to address them... permit me
to reinsert that comment which I felt is rather relevant to the present day
situation vis a vis the Japanese (now seen as a nation of peace-loving
Japanese, who were always members of a pacifist nation, and who were
'abused' by the U.S.), and the U.S., now pictured by those obviously having
an agenda which is decidedly anti-American as only the aggressor in that war...
and the only side that committed any atrocities against the peace-loving
Japanese. My comment that you clipped --
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
>>
>>> 'Trouble is, now the Iraqis have to be culled in order to keep
>>>all that lard mobile :-(
>>>
>>Hugh's words in respect for his fellow man --
>>
>>"One wonders if Adolf didn't have a point all those years ago!" See
>>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=etpetsgdi8qbge6738onj0lgbpconsd99g%404ax.com
>>
>>Apparently he finds nothing wrong with the holocaust, nor the slaughter
>>of millions. Can anyone other than me, see the hypocrisy of Hugh
>>Neary??
>>
>The old chestnut! Please don't try to pre-empt my support for one of
>Adolfs pastimes.
>
Wouldn't dream of doing so, Hugh... I know how much you enjoy
remembering that special pastime of his. I could be much more vivid
in my description of that particular pastime that you have often stated
you supported... but I'll leave that to the imagination of the gentle
reader.
PV
>HN
A Planet Visitor
Given that the present post of yours is the only one of yours that exists in
this thread... what are you talking about?
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
There are other threads so what are you talking about?
foo
wrote:
>On 10/08/03 8:42, in article 2dnbjvkok8igk4au5...@4ax.com, "A
>Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 10:19:02 +0100, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:07:55 GMT, foo
>>> <necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Whether you or anyone accepts this, it is most certain in my mind,
>> that the use of the Atomic Bomb was the best thing that ever happened
>> to the Japanese, and perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to the
>> U.S.
>
>Curious, do you feel the the Japanese agree with you or is this
>another unilateral American decision?
Depends on which Japanese you ask. If it's the ones who oversaw the
Bataan Death March, they all learned the manifest and many benefits of
manila hemp.
>
>I also doubt whether you`ll get many takers in Japan. Likewise
>in the USA with regard to the worse thing that happened to the nation.
Care to make a bet about what the Japanese teach their school children
about their history are barbarians? Do you suppose they bother to tell
them that their "honorable ancestor-sans" murdered six million in
Manchuria?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
It's not like they viewed the chinese as inferior or subhuman or
something, right?
snip.....
Earl, when six million japanese are dead from those two bombs we
dropped, and when they revise their history to include their real
history, I promise to consider feeling guilty over nuking them and
their subsequent health problems.
So far they've supressed their history, they still think the rest of
the world is inferior to them, they think we owe them something for
nuking them, despite the fact that they started shit they couldn't
finish.
No, I don't feel a bit guilty over my country's treatment of Japan,
not even a little bit. It's a pity that we didn't have a military
tribunal for the rest of them and dispense military justice for all of
them instead of having a show trial.
>
>
>Earl
>
>
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:7a6ejv45bn5009ods...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:35:43 +0100, "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>> >news:2dnbjvkok8igk4au5...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >snip
>> >> Apparently he finds nothing wrong with the holocaust, nor the slaughter
>> >> of millions. Can anyone other than me, see the hypocrisy of Hugh
>> >> Neary??
>> >>
>> >> PV
>> >
>> >
>> >I really would have a check made on your computer
>> >or ISP. You are obviously missing my posts.
>> >
>> Given that the present post of yours is the only one of yours that exists
>in
>> this thread... what are you talking about?
>>
>> PV
>>
>>
>
>There are other threads so what are you talking about?
>
There are certainly other threads, but you posed your question in this one.
Nonetheless, perhaps it's time to clear the air a bit, between you and I.
As I admittedly am, I find you to be opinionated and stubborn. I don't
even think that you would deny you are. And at times, I simply give up
in continuing a dialog with you since you do the same thing that you
accuse me of... drift off into hyperbole (such as your 'explanation' that
one becomes ethnically English , simply by being born in the U.K.), and
it becomes frustrating for me, since I do not wish to insult you, although
I sense that you have no such reservations in respect to 'PV' or my
comments. If you feel that makes you the 'winner,' good luck. You
would not be the only one who claims victory, when it actually doesn't
exist. But I treat you 'differently' than I would treat most other posters
I might disagree with, since much of your comments I find to be
reasonable, even in disagreement. For that reason I have often referred
to you as a 'reasonable abolitionist,' and in those other cases, I defer to
your advanced age, which has perhaps ossified your views on certain
subjects. I am admittedly more 'aggressive' with other posters (many
of whom I consider half-wits, or even as having some part of their
character that defies my psychological analysis), than I am with you, for
those reasons. Because I fully recognize they are simpletons, I have
no problem in taking such an 'aggressive' posture, since treating them
with 'kid-gloves' would provide them the slight respect that they do not
in the least deserve. But I do presume to take YOUR comments with
a degree of respect, and I often wish that you could do the same toward
mine... IMHO.
In my opinion, you are not unintelligent, but your views are often slanted
(admittedly mine are as well, but I seem to have more ease in admitting it
than you do - just as I admit my own warts here and now). Further,
I find you certainly dogmatically self-assured of your opinions, sometimes
neglecting to state they are only opinions, expressing them as some
sort of fact. I believe I am usually a bit self-deprecating and deny claiming
my opinions represent any factual proof, (thus my excessive use of IMHO),
unless I provide such independent factual proof, whenever I detect that
someone might assume my opinions are offered as some factual proof.
Once again, I admit imperfection in doing so, and there have certainly been
times when others, including you, thought I was expressing some fact
when it was only my opinion, that I had been unclear in stating it was only
my opinion. Again, that is simply how I see you and I, and represents no
claim to anything other than how 'I' see the two of us here.... IMHO.
In any case, I have repeated over and over, that I am here to offer my
opinion, and having done so, there is actually no demand placed on me
(or anyone for that matter) to continue arguing after having stated that
opinion. Obviously, there is no 'rule' that anyone MUST respond to
anyone in respect to any comment they make; thus, because I do not
wish to offend you, I often simply let it lapse. It sometimes becomes
unproductive to continue such dialogs, and I do not wish to just go
back and forth with you, achieving not a single thing, but irritating each
other more deeply. So if you find that you have posted a comment to
me, and I did not answer, do not presume that there is something wrong
with my newsreader, because I can assure you I see all posts. Simply
assume I have had my say... have stated my opinion.. and have simply
decided to ignore you, because I find it no longer reasonable or productive
to continue, and do not wish to further irritate you.
Finally, one particular point of 'irritation' on my part in respect to your
comments. Frequently, I have found you making oblique insults in
respect to my comments, in your posts to others. A case in point is
even today (there are many others), in a post to Earl... where you
state "When you change horses the change is so violent that you make
PV's inumerable changes of tack seem innocuous." Apparently
finding some advantage in stating "PV's inumerable changes of tack."
I would defy you to find where I have so characterized YOU in
a post to another, presuming that they are 'EVEN worse than John Rennie.'
I expect better from you, John,
In sum... I believe I treat you with more respect than you treat me.
I expect a lack of respect from those less mentally endowed, since
they are usually looking about desperately for a 'friend,' and use an
oblique insult in respect to me, in a post to another they know will
support them, if it is seen that they support that poster in other
dialogs with PV. The old 'slurp... slurp...slurp...routine.' I rather
enjoy playing an 'aggressive' role with them, since it shows I have
not the slightest respect for anything they might offer, and not replying
'aggressively' to their comments would imply some degree of respect.
But it is rather joyless when it involves you. I don't expect you to
agree with me here, or to change... but I just needed to 'clear the air,'
in respect to how I see the posts which flow between us.
IMHO.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>On 10/08/03 8:42, in article 2dnbjvkok8igk4au5...@4ax.com, "A
>Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 10:19:02 +0100, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:07:55 GMT, foo
>>> <necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Whether you or anyone accepts this, it is most certain in my mind,
>> that the use of the Atomic Bomb was the best thing that ever happened
>> to the Japanese, and perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to the
>> U.S.
>
>Curious, do you feel the the Japanese agree with you or is this
>another unilateral American decision?
>
Since I am not Japanese, nor do I speak for all Americans, and since
I clearly stated "in my mind," your comment is both immaterial and frivolous.
However, given that you find the Japanese to be 'poor peace-loving
abused victims of WW II,' and the U.S. to be the 'evil empire of
WW II,' it's rather clear that in the microcosm of YOU... the bomb
WAS the best thing that ever happened to the Japanese, and
perhaps the worst thing that every happened to the U.S. Without
it, you'd have less of a reason to portray the U.S. as having committed
atrocities in WW II, in your traitorous hate for Americans, and
your treasonous comments in AADP. You actually are a poster
boy for 'I Love the Bomb,' since it gives you some pathetic 'foot
in the door' ability to spread your evil poison. You have found the
bomb to be an 'excuse' for you to portray the Japanese as
'peace-loving' in WW II, while casting a blind-eye to the atrocities
they committed, by presuming to offer other atrocities from hundreds
of years before in excuse.
>I also doubt whether you`ll get many takers in Japan.
Curious, do you feel that the Japanese agree with you or is this
another unilateral Earl Evleth decision?
> Likewise
>in the USA with regard to the worse thing that happened to the nation.
>
Curious, do you feel that Americans agree with you or is this
another unilateral Earl Evleth decision?
>> The BOMB!!! The best thing that ever happened to Japan.
>
>You repeated yourself or did you already forget what you had
>written?
>
When you see the words followed by some exclamation marks, you
can presume they were repeated for emphasis. Have Donna explain
it to you.
PV
>Earl
Hugh Neary
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:07:27 +0100, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:42:58 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 10:19:02 +0100, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:07:55 GMT, foo
>>>><necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>>Truman at least deserves to be remembered in history for saving both
>>>>>japanese and american lives. Without him, we wouldn't be driving
>>>>>Nissans, Hondas or watching Sony televisions for at least another
>>>>>forty or fifty years.
>>>>
>>>>Wow this put's a new light on thing doesn't it. All those poor cretins
>>>>splattered all over their cities, cooked, riddled with cancer poisoned
>>>>for generations. It was all worth it though because a few fat bloated
>>>>Americans can park their backsides in front of the TV, or transport
>>>>their lard ridden carcasses to Mc Donalds.
>>>>
>>>He was speaking of the Japanese, you illiterate.
>>
>>Oh! that makes it all right then?
>>
>No... it simply makes you illiterate.
>>
>>'Makes no difference you moron!
>>
>>Supposition snipped!!
>>
>Of course... But I feel that my comments were quite insightful.
SNIP
You may find them "insightful" , I'm afraid I wasn't impressed at all.
To try to justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is nothing
more tha a sick joke!
Glad that the resulting peace cost the US taxpayer a few dollars.
Perhaps they should now consider compensating the Iraqi families for
the loss of their nearest & dearest. The going rate for acts of
terrorism seems to be around 6 million dollars a victim. That plus the
cost of rebuilding Iraq would have the added advantage of leving you
with less cash to spend on your filthy WMD's
>>>
>>>Apparently he finds nothing wrong with the holocaust, nor the slaughter
>>>of millions. Can anyone other than me, see the hypocrisy of Hugh
>>>Neary??
>>>
>>The old chestnut! Please don't try to pre-empt my support for one of
>>Adolfs pastimes.
>>
>Wouldn't dream of doing so, Hugh... I know how much you enjoy
>remembering that special pastime of his. I could be much more vivid
>in my description of that particular pastime that you have often stated
>you supported... but I'll leave that to the imagination of the gentle
>reader.
>
When did I state my support for the holocaust? So0rry PV but I would
suggest yourself and the truth are following separate paths.
HN
A Planet Visitor
I will again try to dumb-down my comment to your intellectual level,
Hugh... a daunting task, I can assure you.
Do you deny that the sum total of the atrocities, and the number of
murders committed on innocent civilians by the Japanese in the
period generally considered as their participation in WW II --
1937-1945 -- far exceed any possible feelings you might hold in
respect to the loss of Japanese life in the use of the bomb? Given
the very real number of innocents murdered by the Japanese
in China, Burma, Malaya, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and
so many other areas in Asia? Jesus H. Christ, Hugh. Open your eyes.
In China alone, it is often estimated that 15-30 million innocent civilians were
murdered.
It is estimated that as many as 200,000 women from Korea, the Philippines,
China, Burma and Indonesia were forced into slaves as prostitutes.
The actions of Unit 731 of the Japanese army is the use of germ and
chemical warfare on civilians is well documented.
In any case, I could provide literally thousands of links regarding the
atrocities committed by the Japanese in WW II in each of those Asian
countries.
If you do not accept this... the dialog is pointless, and you are simply the
blithering idiot I have always found you to be.
Given that you accept the NUMBERS --
Now... fast forward to today. Japan...and the Japanese, despite all
the certain atrocities they committed in WW II.... atrocities which cause
the lives lost in the use of the bomb to pale in comparison, are seen
as 'poor, peaceful' people, who were abused so terribly by the Americans
in WW II because of the Bomb. While the U.S. has come away with
being seen as the aggressor in that entire war, by those as ignorant as
you are. Almost as if Pearl Harbor was Japanese territory, and we had
bombed it to start that war between the Japanese empire and the U.S.
So who between the Japanese and the Americans fared better because
of the use of the bomb in the context of today? And which side committed
the greater atrocities regardless of how anyone sees the use of the bomb?
As I said... the BEST thing that ever happened to the Japanese. The BOMB.
Having changed their mentality, altered their war-like approach to domination
of Asia, while having given them a sense of humility and the understanding
that they were not ruled by a divine power that would always insure they
were both superior and victorious in war. And the economic prosperity
they enjoy today can also be largely attributed to the bomb, since a land
invasion would have meant that today-Japan would be as it was in 1970...
just entering economic recovery. The bomb, in fact, probably gave the
Japanese another 30 years of economic prosperity. And it left them with
the Emperor their culture so depends on. Since a land invasion, would
have certainly resulted in his removal, IMHO.
You can also find some very interesting background which provided
the political and military thinking of the time regarding the use of the
bomb and the expected casualties had it not been used.
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~dyue/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm
Want to see how the Japanese "New History Textbook," which
is a source for school children sees the Japanese in WW II? And
this textbook is rather current... from 2001. See --
http://csf.colorado.edu/bcas/campaign/textbk3.htm
<mindless anti-American raving clipped>
>
>>>>
>>>>Apparently he finds nothing wrong with the holocaust, nor the slaughter
>>>>of millions. Can anyone other than me, see the hypocrisy of Hugh
>>>>Neary??
>>>>
>>>The old chestnut! Please don't try to pre-empt my support for one of
>>>Adolfs pastimes.
>>>
>>Wouldn't dream of doing so, Hugh... I know how much you enjoy
>>remembering that special pastime of his. I could be much more vivid
>>in my description of that particular pastime that you have often stated
>>you supported... but I'll leave that to the imagination of the gentle
>>reader.
>>
>
>When did I state my support for the holocaust? So0rry PV but I would
>suggest yourself and the truth are following separate paths.
>
Why that would be your conclusion that perhaps Hitler had the right idea!
Your words --
"One wonders if Adolf didn't have a point all those years ago!"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=etpetsgdi8qbge6738onj0lgbpconsd99g%404ax.com
Those words of yours stood out starkly and alone, and were in respect
to how you view Israel and what you presume they "have done to the
Arabs." There can be absolutely NO other way to view that independent
comment than to see it as 'support for the holocaust.'
PV
>HN
drdoody
> Truman at least deserves to be remembered in history for saving both
> japanese and american lives.
Aside from Johnson, there is no American president I feel more
sympathy for than Truman. Truman was never intended to make any
important decisions. He was simply there to garner the "Hayseed Vote".
Hell, he didn't even know what the Manhattan Project was until he had
to decide the use of its final product. Imagine for a second the
responsibility that would be heaped upon your shoulders if you were
made to choose between killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese
civilians with nuclear weapons or killing hundreds of thousands of
American troops with a full scale invasion of the the Japanese home
islands. Truman was by no means a stupid man. He no doubt fully
understood the gravity of the decision placed before him. Whether he
chose correctly or not will be debated into eternity.
Unfortunately for him, Truman probably understood that as well.
Doc
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:9jjojv434bad8r8kf...@4ax.com...
>> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~dyue/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm
I've taken the liberty of printing a chunk of the above
although it is best read in full so that those who still believe
that the Japanese were seriously suring for peace in
July 45 have their argument refuted.
On July 4, 1945, the British agree to the use of the atomic bomb against
Japan. On July 16, during the Potsdam Conference, the first A-bomb was
successfully tested. A way had been found to end the war quickly and
decisively. This was the situation on July 26 when the U.S., Britain and
China issued the Potsdam Declaration to Japan to surrender unconditionally,
"The alternative," said the declaration, "is complete and utter
destruction."
On July 25, Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki announced to the Japanese press
that the Potsdnm declaration was to be Ignored." Meanwhile, the Magic
Summaries revealed that Tokyo was demanding that Moscow accept a special
envoy from Emperor Hirohito, presumably to cement the deal offering to
divide Asia between Japan and Russia while Moscow brokered a Japanese
surrender with the U.S. and Britain that would be acceptable to Tokyo.
This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and
Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan.
Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared to
surrender nor to negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the only
way to end the war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear
weapons.
Two bombs were dropped. The Russians invaded Manchuria. On August 10,
Emperor Hirohito overruled his militarist advisors and accepted the Potsdam
declaration. Japan surrendered.
Propaganda Campaign
But the Americans continued to read the Japanese codes. Almost immediately;
the Magic Summaries revealed that the new foreign minister, Mamoru
Shigemitsu, had begun a world-wide propaganda campaign to brand the
Americans as war criminals for using nuclear weapons. Tokyo's goals included
keeping Emperor Hirohito from being tried for instigating a war of
aggression, and diverting Western attention away from the many Japanese
atrocities committed since the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937.
"Since the Americans have recently been raising an uproar about the question
of our mistreatment of prisoners [of war],'' Shigemitsu instructed his
diplomats in the Sept. 15, 1945, Magic Summary, "I think we should make
every effort to exploit the atomic bomb question in our propaganda. That
propaganda campaign has borne its final fruit in the revisionist account of
the bombing of Japan.
Yet the evidence is crystal clear. The use of nuclear weapons to end World
War II quickly and decisively averted the death or maiming of hundreds of
thousands American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. It also saved the
lives of some 400,000 Allied prisoners of war and civilian detainees in
Japanese hands, all of whom were to be executed in the event of an American
invasion of Japan. Above all, it saved untold hundreds of thousands more
Japanese-perhaps millions-from becoming casualties of pre-invasion bombing
and shelling, followed by two invasions and forcible occupation.
John Rennie
"drdoody" <drd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a050c062.03081...@posting.google.com...
Agreed. However, he did have the benefit of advice from the
greatest American never to have become president, General
Marshall. Marshall was by no means sure that the bomb should
be dropped or that the Japanese would surrender even if it was
dropped. Thankfully he overcame these doubts and advised
Truman accordingly.
Earl Evleth
D41%a.25233$R6.38...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net, "John Rennie"
<j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I've taken the liberty of printing a chunk of the above
> although it is best read in full so that those who still believe
> that the Japanese were seriously suring for peace in
> July 45 have their argument refuted.
All of what you wrote has been gone over, you don't give a balanced
analysis. You are using the web as a source again,it is incomplete.
There are two "recent" books which cover the issue reaching opposite
conclusions.
"Downfall" by Richard Frank (1999). This is a defense of the decision
to drop the bomb
"The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American
Myth" by Gar Alperovitz (1995).
The latter give the opposing opinions of many in the US armed forces
establishment at the time.
Please read and report back.
Earl
Jigsaw1695
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:D41%a.25233$R6.38...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
An interesting and informative article. I cant wait until HN reads it and
sends in his
response. I seriously doubt if anything will ever change his mind.
Jigsaw
Hugh Neary
wrote:
Filthy excuse for mindless slaughter snipped
Sorry PV it won't wash! No excuse is acceptable for the inhuman
atrocities perpetrated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>>>>>
>>>>>Apparently he finds nothing wrong with the holocaust, nor the slaughter
>>>>>of millions. Can anyone other than me, see the hypocrisy of Hugh
>>>>>Neary??
>>>>>
>>>>The old chestnut! Please don't try to pre-empt my support for one of
>>>>Adolfs pastimes.
>>>>
>>>Wouldn't dream of doing so, Hugh... I know how much you enjoy
>>>remembering that special pastime of his. I could be much more vivid
>>>in my description of that particular pastime that you have often stated
>>>you supported... but I'll leave that to the imagination of the gentle
>>>reader.
>>>
>>
>>When did I state my support for the holocaust? So0rry PV but I would
>>suggest yourself and the truth are following separate paths.
>>
>Why that would be your conclusion that perhaps Hitler had the right idea!
>Your words --
>"One wonders if Adolf didn't have a point all those years ago!"
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=etpetsgdi8qbge6738onj0lgbpconsd99g%404ax.com
>Those words of yours stood out starkly and alone, and were in respect
>to how you view Israel and what you presume they "have done to the
>Arabs." There can be absolutely NO other way to view that independent
>comment than to see it as 'support for the holocaust.'
>
I know you have a bit of trouble with lateral thinking PV, but
wondering how the Holocaust came about is probably a little better
than giving blind support for some elements of the religion that seem
to think that a few words from Yaweh gives them the go ahead to kill
Palestinians and spawn one of the most racist groups on the planet.
Likewise, I'm sure an attempt at understanding what brought about the
WTC destruction is in your somewhat befuddled brain tantamount to
supporting terrorists, alas unless the complete picture is examined
all there will be is revenge and repetition.
HN
Hugh Neary
Youre damn right, nothing will change my mind on that score Jigsaw.
The bomb is an obcenity. The suffering caused to innocent people was
just another war crime. Have you seen someone die from cancer BTW? It
isn't too pleasant.
HN
A Planet Visitor
>On 15/08/03 10:45, in article
>D41%a.25233$R6.38...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net, "John Rennie"
><j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> I've taken the liberty of printing a chunk of the above
>> although it is best read in full so that those who still believe
>> that the Japanese were seriously suring for peace in
>> July 45 have their argument refuted.
>
John again holds expectations of Earl far above those he has normally
demonstrated. John asks that they are 'best read in full.' Earl has
never been able to do so, when any comment would disagree with his
pre-set biased view. He will read the first few lines, and then claim
"I don't read all your stuff."
<sarcasm> How very 'scientific' such an approach is!.
>
>All of what you wrote has been gone over, you don't give a balanced
>analysis. You are using the web as a source again,it is incomplete.
>
You must be mad!! You presume everything that doesn't agree with
your pitifully weak arguments must simply consist of comments that are
inaccurate. Little wonder that you are seen as a rather stupid little man
here, with a needy neuroses to pompously and arrogantly portray yourself
as otherwise, because of your own obvious insecurities. The day that
you gain some insight into what drives your mostly irrational comments,
is the day you will awaken to a new experience as to how little you really
understand of everything remote from a bubble chamber. I doubt
seriously that such a day will ever come, because that self-recognition
would cause such a crushing blow to your ego, that you would not be
able to function even in that neat little compartmentalized world you
have created for yourself.
>There are two "recent" books which cover the issue reaching opposite
>conclusions.
>
>"Downfall" by Richard Frank (1999). This is a defense of the decision
>to drop the bomb
>
>"The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American
>Myth" by Gar Alperovitz (1995).
>
>
>The latter give the opposing opinions of many in the US armed forces
>establishment at the time.
>
According to your 'theories,' the first, written after the second, thus supersedes
all 'information' provided in the second.
>Please read and report back.
>
Why should he? You've noted that you respond to posts without actually
reading them. This is certainly another of those examples, since it's quite
clear you did not even glance at the information provided 'from the web.'
Why don't YOU 'report back' on the information provided, instead of
'dismissing it without reading it'?
PV
>Earl
John Rennie
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:BB627408.11451%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
I don't know that I would ever bother to read a book
that you, Earl, recommended. If the reading of these two particular tombs
have been the genesis of your attitude on
the use of the atomic bombs on Japan then be assured I shall not read them.
Rather I shall remember the remnants of the Suffolk Regiment as they got off
the train at Ipswich Railway Station in September, 1945. They had been
unfortunate enough to be under the pusillanimous command of General Percy at
Singapore and had been Japanese Prisoners of War for nearly four years. I
was 10 years old and the sight of these incredibly emaciated 'old' men
terrified me. One of them spotted his family and the smile of his face lit
up the whole scene. One of the hundred of thousands of blots on the non
existent collective conscience of the Japanese.
A Planet Visitor
EE has already responded. He claimed he did not read it. But then
went on to state that it contained nothing of importance. The
intellectual box kept shut... which is the method Earl uses... is
always the easiest to argue hold nothing of value inside.
PV
>Jigsaw
>
A Planet Visitor
Hardly, Hugh... you stating that ""One wonders if Adolf didn't have a
point all those years ago!" is a filthy excuse for mindless slaughter.
Since you do not understand that, you do not have the ability to
define what constitutes a "filthy excuse for mindless slaughter."
Your clipping my remark simply demonstrates your inability to handle
the truth. Clipping my comments which seem appropriate
to the dialog, I can only assume you are doing so to dodge that
dialog... so let me put them back in --
---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Sorry PV it won't wash! No excuse is acceptable for the inhuman
>atrocities perpetrated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>
Of course it is, Hugh. The fact that you are too blind, ignorant and
prejudiced simply does not make it untrue. Nothing I offered was
not TRUE. Thus, it only remains your biased opinion... an opinion
which everyone knows supported the holocaust... which argues that
it is not acceptable. Do you think the Japanese would have not used
the bomb in the same manner if the opportunity had presented itself
to them? Do you really ignore the monstrous murders of innocent
civilians, and claim the Japanese were 'poor, peace loving, peasants,'
simply seeking a better life by expanding their intellectual horizons into
the greater part of Asia? And we were the 'big, bad bullies,' who
dropped the bomb on them, because we wanted Japan for ourselves?
The bomb SAVED lives, sport. And made life much better for the
Japanese. Had it not been used, there is little reason to believe that
the Japanese would be a happier, more prosperous and more
peaceful people than they are today. While, had it not been used,
there is quite a bit of reason to believe they would still be in the
awesome throes of a recovery to their culture, their psyche, their
economical well-being, and their present perception as a peace-loving
people. Why do you hate the Japanese so much, that you would wish
such a present day existence upon them?
Ah.. the only 'wondering' that was going on in your mind... was your
suggestion that it was too bad that Adolf didn't handle that problem
before Israel became a nation. The fact that you now state that the
Jew is one of the most racist groups on the planet, is just more
convincing evidence of your anti-Semitism, and your support for
the policies of the Nazis in the holocaust. Why don't you just come
out and say that you're an anti-Semite, and save me all this trouble
of having to prove it over and over, with your words?
>Likewise, I'm sure an attempt at understanding what brought about the
>WTC destruction is in your somewhat befuddled brain tantamount to
>supporting terrorists, alas unless the complete picture is examined
>all there will be is revenge and repetition.
>
What brought about the WTC destruction was a group of crazies quite
similar to you.
PV
>HN
Hugh Neary
wrote:
Drivel snipped again.
>------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Sorry PV it won't wash! No excuse is acceptable for the inhuman
>>atrocities perpetrated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>>
>Of course it is, Hugh. The fact that you are too blind, ignorant and
>prejudiced simply does not make it untrue.
"Blind ignorant & prejudiced". I read of the results of the bombings,
the effects on the people and the cancers and other disorders that are
plauging them to this day. If you can support this kind of action
against any group, military ofr civilian, I'm afraid you are truly a
sick person PV.
The use of the bomb was simply murder. There was no other term
for it.
> Nothing I offered was
>not TRUE. Thus, it only remains your biased opinion... an opinion
>which everyone knows supported the holocaust..
No one knows I supported the holocaust, simply because it is a pack of
lies churned out by your somewha defective mind.
This is rubbish, prove it.
> The fact that you now state that the
>Jew is one of the most racist groups on the planet, is just more
>convincing evidence of your anti-Semitism,
This is also complete rubbish. But would you disagree that there is a
clear racist policy toward anyone trying to live in Isreal these days.
Whatever way you care to look at it, the Jewish religion is a
nice little vehicle for a minority that want to practice racism and
violence toward the Arabs.
> and your support for
>the policies of the Nazis in the holocaust. Why don't you just come
>out and say that you're an anti-Semite, and save me all this trouble
>of having to prove it over and over, with your words?
But PV I'm not. I'm only anti semite in your diseased imagination.
>
>>Likewise, I'm sure an attempt at understanding what brought about the
>>WTC destruction is in your somewhat befuddled brain tantamount to
>>supporting terrorists, alas unless the complete picture is examined
>>all there will be is revenge and repetition.
>>
>What brought about the WTC destruction was a group of crazies quite
>similar to you.
>
Americas forieghn policies had nothing to do with it?
Shucks just a bunch of Arab crazies envious of all those Mc Donalds &
other features of American life that are so desireable.
You really believe that crud??
HN
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
John Rennie wrote:
> I don't know that I would ever bother to read a book
> that you, Earl, recommended. If the reading of these two particular tombs
Witty, John, but uncalled for. Funny as fuck, tho'.
> up the whole scene. One of the hundred of thousands of blots on the non
> existent collective conscience of the Japanese.
In this case, perhaps you would do well to make a perfunctory study of present-
day Japanese culture. It is somthing that I don't much like but, at the same
time, something that is not nearly as reprehensible as you would make it appear
to be.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
drdoody
> Agreed. However, he did have the benefit of advice from the
> greatest American never to have become president, General
> Marshall. Marshall was by no means sure that the bomb should
> be dropped or that the Japanese would surrender even if it was
> dropped. Thankfully he overcame these doubts and advised
> Truman accordingly.
I think the Marshall (and to a greater degree, Mac Arthur)understood
exactly where Bushido ended and self preservation began in the
collective Japanese mind. They both probably knew that Emperor
Hirohito would surrender if he firmly beleived that we would totally
annihilate his people otherwise.
Doc
A Planet Visitor
LOL... You mean your inability to handle the truth... snipped again.
As long as you demonstrate an inability to handle them... they
will go right back in --
------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Sorry PV it won't wash! No excuse is acceptable for the inhuman
>>>atrocities perpetrated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>>>
>>Of course it is, Hugh. The fact that you are too blind, ignorant and
>>prejudiced simply does not make it untrue.
>
>"Blind ignorant & prejudiced". I read of the results of the bombings,
>the effects on the people and the cancers and other disorders that are
>plauging them to this day. If you can support this kind of action
>against any group, military ofr civilian, I'm afraid you are truly a
>sick person PV.
>
Apparently you did not read of the atrocities committed by the Japanese,
and how you now see them as 'poor peace-loving peasants' during the
years of WW II. Instead of simply clipping that proof... trying reading
it.
> The use of the bomb was simply murder. There was no other term
>for it.
>
Actually, it was an action taken in a declared war. The Japanese understood
that quite well, and had no compunction in the slightest in the murder of
millions upon millions of innocent humans. Something you continually
excuse them for. As I said... the BOMB was the best thing that ever
happened to the Japanese. It saved millions of their lives, it permitted them
to retain their culture, and the unity of their country. It permitted them to
retain their Emperor. It permitted them a quicker path to economic
recovery. It removed a war-like psyche from their nationalistic character
where they will never threaten another nation again. It demonstrated
to them that they were not the invincible warriors that they had been led
to believe, incapable of defeat because of their belief in the divinity of their
existence. And it transformed them into appearing to be the 'victim'
in that war, while the U.S. was transformed, by idiots such as yourself
denying the facts that are before them, into the 'aggressor' in that war.
None of these would have developed as they have, had a land-invasion
of Japan occurred.
And finally, it demonstrated to the world the true horror of the use of that
weapon, which may have saved us all from finding a mentality in the
cold war, that would have made it 'easier to accept' that use by either
side. If such horror had not actually been demonstrated as a possibility,
then at a time when it meant mutual annihilation of our species, it might
have been seen to have 'practical and acceptable consequences' in its
use in various confrontations. Certainly the Cuban Missile crisis comes
to my mind.
>> Nothing I offered was
>>not TRUE. Thus, it only remains your biased opinion... an opinion
>>which everyone knows supported the holocaust..
>
>No one knows I supported the holocaust, simply because it is a pack of
>lies churned out by your somewha defective mind.
>
Everyone who is not mentally retarded knows you supported the holocaust,
sport. It is clear from your expression that perhaps Hitler had 'a point' all
those years ago.
Certainly... see your words in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=etpetsgdi8qbge6738onj0lgbpconsd99g%404ax.com
You state that "Over the years I have frequently seen..." (which certainly
relates to the time-frame of Israel becoming a nation) that the Jews employ
"ethnic cleansing." You then state most emphatically that "One wonders
if Adolf didn't have a point all those years ago!" Since 'all those years ago,'
certainly was prior to the existence of Israel, your words mean exactly
what I have said.
>> The fact that you now state that the
>>Jew is one of the most racist groups on the planet, is just more
>>convincing evidence of your anti-Semitism,
>
>This is also complete rubbish. But would you disagree that there is a
>clear racist policy toward anyone trying to live in Isreal these days.
>
Umm.... Hugh... the definition of anti-Semitic is one who is hostile
or opposed to the Jews. Can you possibly deny that you are an
Anti-Semite?
> Whatever way you care to look at it, the Jewish religion is a
>nice little vehicle for a minority that want to practice racism and
>violence toward the Arabs.
>
I rest my case... you are most certainly an advocate of Hitler's policy
in WW II, which was the mechanical, and methodical assembly-line
extermination of the Jew. Let's put some perspective on this and
see what some of the Arabs have said recently in respect to the Jew --
============================================
"'I would like to stand at the place and kill the Jew, who stands opposite
me. If each Arab kills one Jew, then no more Jews will be left.'
Mustafa Tlas, Syrian Secretary of Defense, Lebanese television LBC
6 May 2001.
'Have no mercy with the Jews, no matter, in which country. Fight against
them, wherever you meet them. Wherever you might be, kill the Jews
and Americans, who are like them, and who assist them. They all lie
in the same trench (fighting) against the Arabs and Muslims.'
Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, a member of the ' Fatwa Council,' appointed
by the Palestinian autonomy authority, and former rector of the Islamic
University in Gaza, television of the Palestinian autonomy authority,
14 October 2000.
'Jews are Jews, whether Labor or Likud, Jew is Jews. There are no
moderate ones or supporters of peace among them. They are all liars.
We must massacre and kill them. As Allah the all powerful one says:
'Fight against them.' Allah will torture them with your hands and will
humiliate them and will help you, to overcome them and to release
the souls of the believers (...) They (the Jews) created her (Israel)
as an outpost of their civilization - and as a vanguard of their army
and as a sword of the West and of the Knight of the Cross, which
is hanging in this country over the heads of the Muslim monotheists.
They want Jews to be their leaders...'
Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, member of the Fatwa Council, in the
mosque Zayd bin Sultan Nahyan in Gaza, 13 October 2000 (on
the day after the lynching murder of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah,
which they showed live on the Palestinian television." (2002:23)
'Each pious Muslim must participate in the Dshihad, in order to
liberate the robbed Palestine from the condemned heretical Jews
(...); of what advantage would be a normalization with the impure Jews?'
Iast Ibrahim, vice-president of the Iraq, on the summit conference of
the Islamic States, 12 November 2000." (2002:30).
"We will not give up one patch of ground in Palestine, from Haifa and
Jaffa and Akko and Mulabbas (Petah Tikvah) and Salamah and
Majdal (Ashkelon) and from the entire country and Gaza and the
West Jordan territory... '
Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, member of the 'Fatwa Council' of the
Palestinian autonomy authority, 13 October 2000, the day after
the lynching murder of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah, which they
showed live on the Palestinian television. (Haifa, Jaffa, Akko, Petah
Tikvah and Ashkelon are Israeli cities)." - Gal Ben Ari (2002:34)
'Even if we agreed, to proclaim our State, while it contains now only
22 per cent of Palestine, that is, the West Jordan territory and Gaza,
our final goal will still be the liberation of the entire historical Palestine
from the river (= Jordan) up to the sea (= Mediterranean) (...). We
differentiate between the strategic, long-term goals and the short term
political goals, which we must accept temporarily, due to international
pressure.'
Faisal al-Husseini, former Palestinian Minister for Jerusalem questions,
in the Egyptian newspaper al-Arabi 24 June 20001." - Gal Ben Ari (2002:35)
'... if Allah wants it, this unfair State of Israel will be extinguished, this
unfair State of Great Britain will be extinguished (...) Blessed is he, who
leads de Dshihad, in order to accomplish Allah's will (...). Blessed is he,
who attaches a belt with explosives at his body or at the bodies of his
sons, to throw himself with this into the middle of a crowd of Jews...'
Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi in a lecture a few days after Jassir Arafat declared
an armistice, Palestinian television, 8 June 20001." - Gal Ben Ari (2002:36)
'We teach the children that suicide assassination attempts will cause
the Israeli people to become afraid and that we are allowed to do that
(...), we teach them, that someone, who becomes a suicide assassin,
achieves the highest rank in the paradise.'
Palestinian advisor 'Paradise Camp' toward BBC, quoted after the
Jerusalem Post, 20 July 2001." - Gal Ben Ari (2002:36)
'All weapons must be directed against the Jews, Allah's enemies, which
the Koran describes as apes and pigs, worshippers of the calf and
worshipper of idols. Allah will let the Muslim rule over the Jew, we will
blow them up in Hadera, we will blow them up in Tel Aviv and in Netanya
for Allah's justice against this rabble (...) We will enter Jerusalem and
Jaffa and Haifa and Ashkelon as conquerors (...), we bless all those,
who educate their children in the spirit of the djihad and martyrdom.
Blessed is, who fires a bullet into the head of a Jew.'
In a lecture, sent on the television of the Palestinian autonomy authority,
3 August 2001." Gal Ben Ari (2002:36, 37)
'The West has changed Islam into an enemy (...), already since the
wars of the Knights of the Cross (...). It is inconceivable that we, the
Muslims, will sign a treaty against another Muslim State (...). One must
bring the fear (the terror) over Allah's enemies (...). If these are terrorists,
then this is the best kind of terror, which there is (...). I do not believe
that a Muslim will allow it that a Muslim homeland, such as Palestine
and Jerusalem, remains in the hands of the Zionists (...). Each person
has the right, to transform himself into a human bomb and to explode
in this society (Israel) as a bomb.'
Sheikh Jussuf Al Kardawi, one of the most outstanding Islam scholars
(Doha, Qatar) in an interview for the TV organization El Dschazia, 16
September 20001." - Gal Ben Ari, The seed of hate. Jews and Israel
in the Arab media (2002:37, 38)
And From Palestinian school books ==
'It is a self-sacrifice, when a Muslim dies, while doing Allah's will (...).
A person, who dies in this way, is called a martyr (...). Self-sacrifice
for Allah is a hope for those, who believe in Allah and trust in his
promises. The martyr is glad, full of ecstasy, that he will go into the
paradise, which Allah has prepared for him.'
Islamic education for the 7th Class, P. 112.
'The Muslim sacrifices himself for his faith and fights a Holy War
for Allah. He does not know cowardice, because he understands
that the time of his death has already been determined and that
it is better to die as a martyr on the battleground, than to die in bed.'
Islamic education for the 8th Class, P. 176.
'... Fighters and martyrs of the Holy War are the most honorable
persons after the prophets.'
Reading book & literary texts for the 10th Class, P. 103.
'I will take my soul into my own hand and hurl it (in the war) into
the abyss of death (...). You know, I do see my own death and
march toward it fast (...). You know - That is the death of men
and of the one (...), seeking an honorable death - that is death
pure and simple.'
Song of the martyrs, from: Our Arabic language for the 5th Class,
P. 60 and guide for the improvement of the Arabic language for
the 12th Class, P. 84.
'... The youth will not be fatigued, it will want to be either free or to
die. We scoop our water out of death. And we will not be slaves of
the enemies. Our symbol is the 'sword' and the 'feather', but not
'words'.'
My homeland, from: Palestinian national education for the 1st Class,
P. 67-68." - Gal Ben Ari (2002: 39, 40).
'The holy war is a religious obligation for each Muslim man and each
Muslim woman.'
Our Arabic language for the 5th Class, P. 167.
'Know this, my son, that Palestine is your country (...), its entire
earth has been soaked with the blood of the martyrs. Why do we have
to fight (against the Jews) and drive them from our country?'
Our Arabic language for the 5th Class, part I, P. 64-66." - Gal Ben
Ari (2002:43).
'My brothers! The suppressors (the Israelis) have crossed the borders.
Therefore Holy War and self-sacrifice are an obligation! (...) Should
we allow them to steal our Arab nature? (...) Draw your sword! Let us
collect for this with red blood and kindled fire. (...) Death will call the
sword and it will become mad from so many battles. Oh, Palestine,
your youth will save your country.'
Reading book & literary texts for the 10th Class, P. 120-122." - Gal
Ben Ari (2002:44).
'... in your left hand you carried the Koran, and in your right hand
an Arab sword (...) Not one centimeter (= of the land) will be freed
without blood. Therefore, go forward, and shout: Allah is great!'
Bayonet and torches, from: Reading book & literary texts for the 10th
Class, P. 131-135.
'Remember: The last and inevitable result will be the victory of the
Muslims over the Jews.'
Our Arabic language for the 7th Class, S. 67." - Gal Ben Ari (2002:45)
'This religion (= Islam) will destroy all other religions, and it will be
spread by Allah's will, by the Muslim fighters of the Holy War.'
Islamic education for the 7th Class, part 2, P. 67." - Gal Ben Ari,
The seed of hate. Jews and Israel in the Arab media (2002:46)
=================================================
But go ahead and clip those comments as 'irrelevant' as well.
>> and your support for
>>the policies of the Nazis in the holocaust. Why don't you just come
>>out and say that you're an anti-Semite, and save me all this trouble
>>of having to prove it over and over, with your words?
>
>But PV I'm not. I'm only anti semite in your diseased imagination.
No... you've clearly admitted that you are... using the definition of the
word. Since there is no question that you are "hostile or opposed to the
Jews." For that definition... see
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col61&query=anti-Semite&x=0&y=0
And of course, a great number of other references that define that
word to mean just that. It is hardly conceivable that you could claim
you are NOT 'hostile or opposed to the Jews,' if you argue that
"One wonders if Adolf didn't have a point all those years ago!"
>>>Likewise, I'm sure an attempt at understanding what brought about the
>>>WTC destruction is in your somewhat befuddled brain tantamount to
>>>supporting terrorists, alas unless the complete picture is examined
>>>all there will be is revenge and repetition.
>>>
>>What brought about the WTC destruction was a group of crazies quite
>>similar to you.
>>
>Americas forieghn policies had nothing to do with it?
>
No... nothing justifies a terrorist act of murder. When was the last
time that a group of American crazies hijacked some passenger aircraft
and flew them in suicide into Mecca? What does a foreign policy
have to do with terrorist murders?
>Shucks just a bunch of Arab crazies envious of all those Mc Donalds &
>other features of American life that are so desireable.
>
>You really believe that crud??
>
They were Arab crazies who see the U.S. as a symbol of what
they actually wish to destroy... the civilized infrastructure of the
Western World. Their purpose had nothing to do with the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but was an attempt by al-Quida to
destroy that infrastructure through terrorism. I did not see them
flying those aircraft into any McDonald's, but rather those
symbols which represent Western prosperity and power.
PV
>HN
>
foo
wrote:
>On 15/08/03 10:45, in article
Earl,
I suspect that you are confused.
Allow me to help you with your 'retrospect'. Bear in mind that I don't
make a living off the government, by brokering "grants" nor do I sell
books, like the authors of those books.
The mortality rate for prisoners of war in Japanese prison camps was
anywhere from twice to four times that of German prison camps and many
times that when compared to american or british prison camps.
Documents recovered from the Japanese government after our occupation
made it clear that they intended to murder prisoners of war to avoid
their use in subsequent war crimes trials.
Those who actually were in Japan both prior to our occupation as well
as those who participated in the prosecution or investigation of war
crimes believed that without the nuclear weapons we dropped that all
of the POW's in Japan would have been murdered.
Any book written in apology for our actions this late in the game
pales in contrast to the factual views of the inviduals who were there
and faced the mortal threat of an enemy without any conscience.
Hope this helps.
foo
wrote:
snip.....
>>
>>An interesting and informative article. I cant wait until HN reads it and
>>sends in his
>>response. I seriously doubt if anything will ever change his mind.
>>
>>Jigsaw
>>
>Youre damn right, nothing will change my mind on that score Jigsaw.
>
>The bomb is an obcenity. The suffering caused to innocent people was
>just another war crime. Have you seen someone die from cancer BTW? It
>isn't too pleasant.
>
>HN
Hugh,
The reality that you refuse to accept is that the use of a nuclear
bomb saved lives, both japanese and others.
Without the use of those two bombs, the Japanese would have murdered
all of the POWs in capitivity, about this there is little doubt.
You have no sense of balance whatsoever. POW's who spent months in
Japanese prison camps, some after the "Death March" in the Phillipines
and others who had the grave misfortune of bailing out over Japan,
died no less painful a death than those Japanese who died from cancer
as a consequence of the bombs.
It is sad, that you study history but learn so little from it.
Hugh Neary
<necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:16:02 +0100, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net>
>wrote:
>
>snip.....
>
>>>
>>>An interesting and informative article. I cant wait until HN reads it and
>>>sends in his
>>>response. I seriously doubt if anything will ever change his mind.
>>>
>>>Jigsaw
>>>
>>Youre damn right, nothing will change my mind on that score Jigsaw.
>>
>>The bomb is an obcenity. The suffering caused to innocent people was
>>just another war crime. Have you seen someone die from cancer BTW? It
>>isn't too pleasant.
>>
>>HN
>
>Hugh,
>
>The reality that you refuse to accept is that the use of a nuclear
>bomb saved lives, both japanese and others.
>
Whether it saved lives or not, it was inhuman and barbaric.
>Without the use of those two bombs, the Japanese would have murdered
>all of the POWs in capitivity, about this there is little doubt.
Then they could have been tried for war crimes. I'm sure you would
still have had your data on the results of their "experiments" to
drool over even if you had killed them.
>
>You have no sense of balance whatsoever. POW's who spent months in
>Japanese prison camps, some after the "Death March" in the Phillipines
>and others who had the grave misfortune of bailing out over Japan,
>died no less painful a death than those Japanese who died from cancer
>as a consequence of the bombs.
You are an expert on the subject then? You have experienced a few
deaths yourself? You are perhaps some kind of pussy/ human cross that
has a few lives to spare?
Might I remind you that POW's are not usually made up of women and
children BTW.
>
>It is sad, that you study history but learn so little from it.
I'll be the first to admit I do not have first hand knoledge of the
situayion at the time. Literature I have consulted leads me to be of
the opinion that Japan was on its knees at the time of the bombings
and surrender was close anyway. Other little gems of information
suggested that the primary reason for selection of the targets was
their geographical topography coupled with a landscape relatively
undamaged by previous bombings. A little US experiment into death &
destruction it seems!
On a final note, if Iraq is anything to go by, American war criminals
are obviously no better than the Japanese were anyway.
Or are you of the opinion that that little act of theft and wholesale
slaughter was for the "good of the planet" also.
You people should start to get your own sick society in order before
trying to sort out the rest of the world!
HN
Hugh Neary
wrote:
I suppose I should be concerned, as your post emanates from the most
gormless blithering idot in the NG!
But figures quote past history. The use of the bomb was similar to
using the DP a sick inhuman act of revenge [+ a bit of experimentation
in this case] on a population that couldn,t defend themselves
>>>>
>>>>Sorry PV it won't wash! No excuse is acceptable for the inhuman
>>>>atrocities perpetrated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>>>>
>>>Of course it is, Hugh. The fact that you are too blind, ignorant and
>>>prejudiced simply does not make it untrue.
>>
>>"Blind ignorant & prejudiced". I read of the results of the bombings,
>>the effects on the people and the cancers and other disorders that are
>>plauging them to this day. If you can support this kind of action
>>against any group, military ofr civilian, I'm afraid you are truly a
>>sick person PV.
>>
>Apparently you did not read of the atrocities committed by the Japanese,
>and how you now see them as 'poor peace-loving peasants' during the
>years of WW II. Instead of simply clipping that proof... trying reading
>it.
>
I know damn well what the Japanese did. I also know that some of the
sickest individuals devising the experiments on chineese & other
civilians were conveniently let off the hook, as long as other sick
Americans could get a bit of a thrill from reading the details.
>> The use of the bomb was simply murder. There was no other term
>>for it.
>>
>Actually, it was an action taken in a declared war. The Japanese understood
>that quite well, and had no compunction in the slightest in the murder of
>millions upon millions of innocent humans. Something you continually
>excuse them for. As I said... the BOMB was the best thing that ever
>happened to the Japanese. It saved millions of their lives, it permitted them
>to retain their culture, and the unity of their country. It permitted them to
>retain their Emperor. It permitted them a quicker path to economic
>recovery. It removed a war-like psyche from their nationalistic character
>where they will never threaten another nation again. It demonstrated
>to them that they were not the invincible warriors that they had been led
>to believe, incapable of defeat because of their belief in the divinity of their
>existence. And it transformed them into appearing to be the 'victim'
>in that war, while the U.S. was transformed, by idiots such as yourself
>denying the facts that are before them, into the 'aggressor' in that war.
>None of these would have developed as they have, had a land-invasion
>of Japan occurred.
Supposition! You cannot adequately see the present as it stands PV,
Don't attempt to try predicting scenarios that "might have been".
Incidentally I think that Afghanistan and Iraq has once again proved
conclusively that the US does indeed support theft, murder, torture,
and other war crimes.
>
>And finally, it demonstrated to the world the true horror of the use of that
>weapon, which may have saved us all from finding a mentality in the
>cold war, that would have made it 'easier to accept' that use by either
>side. If such horror had not actually been demonstrated as a possibility,
>then at a time when it meant mutual annihilation of our species, it might
>have been seen to have 'practical and acceptable consequences' in its
>use in various confrontations. Certainly the Cuban Missile crisis comes
>to my mind.
Wow, sure beats the jolly old "wave machine" they used in my physics
classes.
Another sick, lame excuse to justify an abhorrence!
SNIP
>>
>Umm.... Hugh... the definition of anti-Semitic is one who is hostile
>or opposed to the Jews. Can you possibly deny that you are an
>Anti-Semite?
Certainly I can. I see nothing wrong with Jews (a religion BTW, not
actally a race), to attempt to be anti Jewish would be as stupid and
bigoted as being anti Catholic, Moslem, Anglican, Mormon, Moony etc
etc.
Incidentally Semites include Arabs and a few other Eastern groups, so
it would be dashed difficult to be bigoted against a third or so of
the planet.
>
>> Whatever way you care to look at it, the Jewish religion is a
>>nice little vehicle for a minority that want to practice racism and
>>violence toward the Arabs.
>>
>I rest my case... you are most certainly an advocate of Hitler's policy
>in WW II, which was the mechanical, and methodical assembly-line
>extermination of the Jew. Let's put some perspective on this and
>see what some of the Arabs have said recently in respect to the Jew --
>
Er what's wrong with the above statement of mine. Is it not fact? Read
the news you idiot. Day after day Zionists are bulldozing people from
their homes using religion as an excuse!
>============================================
I'm reasonably certain a few Christians and Jews have produced
equivalent little texts. All parties have had reason to over the
centuries.
>>> and your support for
>>>the policies of the Nazis in the holocaust. Why don't you just come
>>>out and say that you're an anti-Semite, and save me all this trouble
>>>of having to prove it over and over, with your words?
>>
>>But PV I'm not. I'm only anti semite in your diseased imagination.
>
>No... you've clearly admitted that you are... using the definition of the
>word. Since there is no question that you are "hostile or opposed to the
>Jews." For that definition... see
>http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col61&query=anti-Semite&x=0&y=0
>And of course, a great number of other references that define that
>word to mean just that. It is hardly conceivable that you could claim
>you are NOT 'hostile or opposed to the Jews,' if you argue that
>"One wonders if Adolf didn't have a point all those years ago!"
That isn't hostility. I know it isn'twhat your warped twisted mind
wishes to hear, but believe me it isn't.
>
>>>>Likewise, I'm sure an attempt at understanding what brought about the
>>>>WTC destruction is in your somewhat befuddled brain tantamount to
>>>>supporting terrorists, alas unless the complete picture is examined
>>>>all there will be is revenge and repetition.
>>>>
>>>What brought about the WTC destruction was a group of crazies quite
>>>similar to you.
>>>
>>Americas forieghn policies had nothing to do with it?
>>
>No... nothing justifies a terrorist act of murder. When was the last
>time that a group of American crazies hijacked some passenger aircraft
>and flew them in suicide into Mecca? What does a foreign policy
>have to do with terrorist murders?
American crazies don't have to travel halfway round the globe to find
their victims. If you want to avoid futher carnage in the US, you had
better get your brain cell out and start figuring out why Americas
policies aren't seen in a favourable light elsewhere.
>
>>Shucks just a bunch of Arab crazies envious of all those Mc Donalds &
>>other features of American life that are so desireable.
>>
>>You really believe that crud??
>>
>They were Arab crazies who see the U.S. as a symbol of what
>they actually wish to destroy... the civilized infrastructure of the
>Western World
Think again PV. I certainly didn't look on America as the civilised
infrastrucure as you call it. You can't even stop killing each other
for a start.
Your war crimes in Iraq and Guatanamo bay are hardly civilised are
they now?
> Their purpose had nothing to do with the
>Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but was an attempt by al-Quida to
>destroy that infrastructure through terrorism. I did not see them
>flying those aircraft into any McDonald's, but rather those
>symbols which represent Western prosperity and power.
>
I think you may have a point with the power bit. It isn't used too
wisely is it?
HN
Earl Evleth
"foo" <necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:27:04 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> There are two "recent" books which cover the issue reaching opposite
>> conclusions.
>>
>> "Downfall" by Richard Frank (1999). This is a defense of the decision
>> to drop the bomb
>>
>> "The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American
>> Myth" by Gar Alperovitz (1995).
>>
>>
>> The latter give the opposing opinions of many in the US armed forces
>> establishment at the time.
>>
>> Please read and report back.
>>
>> Earl
>
> Earl,
>
> I suspect that you are confused.
Well, you certainly are if you have not read these two landmark books!
> Allow me to help you ------
No. I am way ahead of you.
> The mortality rate for prisoners of war in Japanese prison camps was
> anywhere from twice to four times that of German prison camps and many
> times that when compared to american or british prison camps.
These books were not about prisoners of war but the decision to drop the
bomb. You got off the subject.
Try sticking on the subject next time around.
Good luck.
Earl
Jigsaw1695
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
Earl Evleth
2gO%a.27390$vo2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Jigsaw1695"
<jigsa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Your record is stuck.
Or you have a speech defect.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
It would appear that you are the one demonstrating you are an 'idot' (sic).
But I am more concerned with the fact you are a Jew-hater, and a
follower of the 'ideas' of Hitler more than anything else. I noticed that
you did not deny any of my claims. Since they are all quite valid. The
fact is 'war is inhuman.' The fact is the U.S. did not initiate that war
between Japan and the U.S. The fact is that it is better that a war
is brought to the swiftest conclusion possible, rather than prolonged
as in the trenches of WW I, and so many other wars that became
a part of the landscape of 'natural living' in Europe for thousands of
years. The fact is that the bomb did just that. The fact is that the
use of the bomb has been a greater instrument in insuring a longer
peace followed its use than would have developed had it not been
used. The use of the bomb has certainly provided strong support for
the peace movements that have followed. Support which would not
exist had the bomb not been used.
>But figures quote past history. The use of the bomb was similar to
>using the DP a sick inhuman act of revenge [+ a bit of experimentation
>in this case] on a population that couldn,t defend themselves
>
Total garbage. There is no doubt that a war brought to a quicker
conclusion is more acceptable than a war that lasts for 100 years.
I thought Europe had already learned this lesson. I believe you had
a war that lasted for 100 years. Think how many lives could have
been saved in a quicker conclusion.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry PV it won't wash! No excuse is acceptable for the inhuman
>>>>>atrocities perpetrated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>>>>>
>>>>Of course it is, Hugh. The fact that you are too blind, ignorant and
>>>>prejudiced simply does not make it untrue.
>>>
>>>"Blind ignorant & prejudiced". I read of the results of the bombings,
>>>the effects on the people and the cancers and other disorders that are
>>>plauging them to this day. If you can support this kind of action
>>>against any group, military ofr civilian, I'm afraid you are truly a
>>>sick person PV.
>>>
>>Apparently you did not read of the atrocities committed by the Japanese,
>>and how you now see them as 'poor peace-loving peasants' during the
>>years of WW II. Instead of simply clipping that proof... trying reading
>>it.
>>
>I know damn well what the Japanese did. I also know that some of the
>sickest individuals devising the experiments on chineese & other
>civilians were conveniently let off the hook, as long as other sick
>Americans could get a bit of a thrill from reading the details.
>
Actually, you have totally ignored what the Japanese did. Never even
attempting to excuse or explain it. just simply ignored it. Your ignorance
knows no bounds. Nor does your anti-American and anti-Jewish
sentiments. War is inhuman, Hugh. Keep that in mind as you try to
understand ---
1) That the war was initiated by the Japanese.
2) That once begun, prolonging war is more inhuman than bringing it to the
quickest conclusion possible.
3) That the Bomb brought that war to the quickest conclusion possible.
4) That doing so was humane, in respect to the number of lives that would
have been lost in prolonging that war.
>>> The use of the bomb was simply murder. There was no other term
>>>for it.
>>>
>>Actually, it was an action taken in a declared war. The Japanese understood
>>that quite well, and had no compunction in the slightest in the murder of
>>millions upon millions of innocent humans. Something you continually
>>excuse them for. As I said... the BOMB was the best thing that ever
>>happened to the Japanese. It saved millions of their lives, it permitted them
>>to retain their culture, and the unity of their country. It permitted them to
>>retain their Emperor. It permitted them a quicker path to economic
>>recovery. It removed a war-like psyche from their nationalistic character
>>where they will never threaten another nation again. It demonstrated
>>to them that they were not the invincible warriors that they had been led
>>to believe, incapable of defeat because of their belief in the divinity of their
>>existence. And it transformed them into appearing to be the 'victim'
>>in that war, while the U.S. was transformed, by idiots such as yourself
>>denying the facts that are before them, into the 'aggressor' in that war.
>>None of these would have developed as they have, had a land-invasion
>>of Japan occurred.
>
>Supposition! You cannot adequately see the present as it stands PV,
>Don't attempt to try predicting scenarios that "might have been".
>
Supposition??? Apparently you do not even support your own position.
Since it is obvious that YOU find the Japanese to be the 'victim' of that
war, and the U.S. to have been the 'aggressor.'
>Incidentally I think that Afghanistan and Iraq has once again proved
>conclusively that the US does indeed support theft, murder, torture,
>and other war crimes.
>
The inoperative word there is 'think,' Hugh. You've never displayed that
capacity before, so why should I expect you to display it now? Incidently,
I 'think' that you are an anti-Semite. so who actually cares what you 'think'?
Perhaps you should 'think' that once again the U.S. was not the initiator
of an overt attack on al-Quida... if you recall the WTC terrorist attack
that murdered 3000 innocent civilians. Nor was the U.S. the initator
of the war between the Japanese Empire and the U.S.
>>And finally, it demonstrated to the world the true horror of the use of that
>>weapon, which may have saved us all from finding a mentality in the
>>cold war, that would have made it 'easier to accept' that use by either
>>side. If such horror had not actually been demonstrated as a possibility,
>>then at a time when it meant mutual annihilation of our species, it might
>>have been seen to have 'practical and acceptable consequences' in its
>>use in various confrontations. Certainly the Cuban Missile crisis comes
>>to my mind.
>
>Wow, sure beats the jolly old "wave machine" they used in my physics
>classes.
>
>Another sick, lame excuse to justify an abhorrence!
>
There is no abhorrence to bringing a war to a swifter conclusion than would
be realized in the alternative. Nor is there any abhorrence in the
recognition of the power of that weapon. The abhorrence would be to
deny either fact. Clearly, using the bomb DID save EVERY life that would
have been lost in the prolongation of that war. The evidence is quite clear
as to the loss of innocent life that would have occurred in prolonging that
war. It far exceeds any loss of life realized with the use of the bomb.
Clear, using the bomb DID demonstrate its awesome power for future
power holders to examine when they contemplated possibly using the
bomb themselves.
>SNIP
>>>
>>Umm.... Hugh... the definition of anti-Semitic is one who is hostile
>>or opposed to the Jews. Can you possibly deny that you are an
>>Anti-Semite?
>
>Certainly I can. I see nothing wrong with Jews (a religion BTW, not
>actally a race),
Actually, you're again as full of shit as a Christmas goose. And it is
typical of European thinking to believe that the Jew should be ashamed
of his ethnic descent, and can only be a Jew if he embraces Judaism.
There is no doubt that yours is similar to much of the 'mindless' thinking
that still lingers in Europe, regarding the Jewish ethnic descent. A thinking
that has driven many a Jew to deny their Hebrew descent, because of the
anti-Semitism that is found in Europe. Approaching the insulting
implication that one can 'discard' his ethnic Hebrew descent if he only
'embraces Christianity.' It insults the rich heritage of the Hebrew culture,
the very soul of the meaning of a Hebrew descent, and the ability of
those having such descent to still exist after centuries of anti-Semitism
and murder in Europe.
There is only one 'race,' Hugh... the 'human race.' Humans can have a
Hebrew descent and claim to be a Jew, without also having to accept
Judaism as a religion. You insult the very meaning of such ethnic descent.
Hitler intended to destroy the 'body' of those of Hebrew descent. You
intend to destroy the spirit, the culture, the heritage, the tradition, the
ethnic roots and the very essence of the Jewish soul, which rests within
such an ethnic descent from Hebrew roots. Your implication is that
one can "ONLY be a Jew" if he follows the religious laws of Judaism,
which implies he could easily cast aside "being Jewish" if he simply
discarded those religious laws, and that would somehow 'transform'
him from what he was. Now he would SUDDENLY be 'non-Jewish,'
to you. Perhaps you also believe that by so doing he will gain 'Christian
salvation.' 13th Century thinking. God... you are one sick individual.
> to attempt to be anti Jewish would be as stupid and
>bigoted as being anti Catholic, Moslem, Anglican, Mormon, Moony etc
>etc.
>
Thank you for having admitted you are stupid... since there is absolutely
no doubt that you are anti-Jewish.
>Incidentally Semites include Arabs and a few other Eastern groups, so
>it would be dashed difficult to be bigoted against a third or so of
>the planet.
>
Just a third??? Oh... I'm sure YOU could manage. You're already
well on your way toward expressing bigotry toward a third of our
species. But the word anti-Semite applies to no other culture but
the Jewish culture. Please understand the historical context of this
word, and the meaning of EVERY definition of that word -- See
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-Semite
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=3203&dict=CALD
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=anti-Semite&matchtype=exact
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col61&query=anti-Semite
http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/anti-Semitic
http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn
ALL of those recognized sources of definitions within the English language,
do not contain the word "Arab," and ALL contain the word "Jew."
>>
>>> Whatever way you care to look at it, the Jewish religion is a
>>>nice little vehicle for a minority that want to practice racism and
>>>violence toward the Arabs.
>>>
>>I rest my case... you are most certainly an advocate of Hitler's policy
>>in WW II, which was the mechanical, and methodical assembly-line
>>extermination of the Jew. Let's put some perspective on this and
>>see what some of the Arabs have said recently in respect to the Jew --
>>
>Er what's wrong with the above statement of mine. Is it not fact? Read
>the news you idiot. Day after day Zionists are bulldozing people from
>their homes using religion as an excuse!
>
Perhaps you are unaware of the suicide terrorists attacks on innocent
Israelis. No... I'm sure you're aware of them... you just wish to ignore
them... because you are anti-Semitic, meaning you are anti-Jewish.
There is absolutely no 'religion' being used as an excuse. The expansion
of Israel into the west bank is an abomination and should stop and the
West Bank issue should be settled as part of the creation of a Palestinian
State. But to claim it is a 'religious' issue, after you claimed that being
Jewish is only a 'religious' issue, simply demonstrates your bigotry.
The expansion is Israel's belief that it provides a greater measure of
self-defense, while those occupying those settlements are simply people
hoping to gain a territorial advantage in a personal sense of possession.
Both views are wrong, but have nothing to do with a 'religious'
argument, and such is simply more "European anti-Semitism"
which I have seen from a number of supposedly 'responsible'
European sources, which cause a shiver to run up my spine as to
the very clear anti-Semitism I see behind such an implication.
And I am reasonably certain you are full of a great deal of horseshit.
Since I have PRODUCED the text, why don't you PRODUCE what
you claim is 'equivalent' text? Put up... or admit that you cannot do
so, Hugh.
>>>> and your support for
>>>>the policies of the Nazis in the holocaust. Why don't you just come
>>>>out and say that you're an anti-Semite, and save me all this trouble
>>>>of having to prove it over and over, with your words?
>>>
>>>But PV I'm not. I'm only anti semite in your diseased imagination.
>>
>>No... you've clearly admitted that you are... using the definition of the
>>word. Since there is no question that you are "hostile or opposed to the
>>Jews." For that definition... see
>>http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col61&query=anti-Semite&x=0&y=0
>>And of course, a great number of other references that define that
>>word to mean just that. It is hardly conceivable that you could claim
>>you are NOT 'hostile or opposed to the Jews,' if you argue that
>>"One wonders if Adolf didn't have a point all those years ago!"
>
>That isn't hostility. I know it isn'twhat your warped twisted mind
>wishes to hear, but believe me it isn't.
>
Of course not... in your warped view, the 'point' of Hitler was not
ACTUALLY one of hostility toward the Jews. The warped, twisted
mind is yours, sport. By your own admission. I need not 'prove'
your hostility toward the Jews, since you express it over and over.
I find the Jews to be among the most intelligent and perceptive of
our species, for reasons which probably evolved from the persecutions
they have endured throughout centuries, from those who think as you
do. And persevered through. As a matter of shear survival from
those with minds such as yours, who wished to exterminate their
spirit, their soul, their culture, their tradition, their ethnic roots, and
even as Hitler... their bodies.
As Einstein (himself a Jew) observed -- "The pursuit of knowledge
for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice and the desire
for personal independence-these are the features of the Jewish
tradition which make me thank my stars that I belong to it." Nor
did Einstein define being a Jew as you have claimed. Since his
view was that being a Jew was a shared culture with a historical
past and common ethical values rather than an institutionalized
religion.
>>>>>Likewise, I'm sure an attempt at understanding what brought about the
>>>>>WTC destruction is in your somewhat befuddled brain tantamount to
>>>>>supporting terrorists, alas unless the complete picture is examined
>>>>>all there will be is revenge and repetition.
>>>>>
>>>>What brought about the WTC destruction was a group of crazies quite
>>>>similar to you.
>>>>
>>>Americas forieghn policies had nothing to do with it?
>>>
>>No... nothing justifies a terrorist act of murder. When was the last
>>time that a group of American crazies hijacked some passenger aircraft
>>and flew them in suicide into Mecca? What does a foreign policy
>>have to do with terrorist murders?
>
>American crazies don't have to travel halfway round the globe to find
>their victims. If you want to avoid futher carnage in the US, you had
>better get your brain cell out and start figuring out why Americas
>policies aren't seen in a favourable light elsewhere.
>
Apparently you are arguing that terrorist attacks which murder innocent
civilians are JUSTIFIED because of 'policies.'
>>>Shucks just a bunch of Arab crazies envious of all those Mc Donalds &
>>>other features of American life that are so desireable.
>>>
>>>You really believe that crud??
>>>
>>They were Arab crazies who see the U.S. as a symbol of what
>>they actually wish to destroy... the civilized infrastructure of the
>>Western World
>
>Think again PV. I certainly didn't look on America as the civilised
>infrastrucure as you call it. You can't even stop killing each other
>for a start.
>
So you support the acts of the terrorists as a 'reasoned response'
to U.S. foreign policy? Let's get that right on the table. You support
the murder of 3,000 innocent humans because of an objection to
a foreign policy held by a sovereign nation? Yes.. or No...
And then perhaps you could translate that view into how you see
the terrorists in Northern Ireland.
>Your war crimes in Iraq and Guatanamo bay are hardly civilised are
>they now?
>
No war crimes have been committed in Iraq and Guantanamo.
In fact, only Saddam's regime and al-Quida have committed acts
which can hardly be characterized as 'civilized.' Witness the
numberless, unmarked mass graves in Iraq.. and witness the dead
in the WTC attack. Of course... they mean nothing to you...
as long as terrorism rules. A rule you obviously support in
every aspect... from the WTC attack to genocide in Iraq by
Saddam to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.
>
>> Their purpose had nothing to do with the
>>Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but was an attempt by al-Quida to
>>destroy that infrastructure through terrorism. I did not see them
>>flying those aircraft into any McDonald's, but rather those
>>symbols which represent Western prosperity and power.
>>
>I think you may have a point with the power bit. It isn't used too
>wisely is it?
>
That's a matter of opinion. Given the fact that I see Europe as
impotently sitting back doing nothing (other than Blair), it's rather
relative.
PV
>HN
A Planet Visitor
<intellectual goosing of Earl on>
LOL... Much of the decision making process in dropping the bomb concerned
itself with the possible fate of prisoners-of-war in the event of a land invasion
of Japan. Your stupidity is rather exposed if you would claim that the
prisoner-of-war issue was not part of the decision to drop the bomb. And
if the author of the book you speak of did not address that issue, you can
hardly call it a 'landmark' investigation, since it ignores a very important
issue which WAS part of the decision making process in dropping the
bomb. How can one claim that an investigation was a 'landmark' if there
is no investigation of the military thinking in respect to using the bomb?
>Try sticking on the subject next time around.
>
>Good luck.
>
Oh, Earl.. if you were only able to heed your own advice.
<intellectual goosing of Earl off>
PV
>Earl (money first... then ethics)
Hugh Neary
wrote:
No it isn't you waged war on people not even born. Mind you, you
sickos are good at that arn't you? If it isn't nukes it's agent
orange, depleted uranium or cluster bombs.
It was a sick, immoral crime against humanity.
Innacurate tripe snipped
Anti- // prefix (also ant- before a vowel or h)
forming nouns and adjectives meaning:
1 opposed to; against (antivivisectionism).
2 preventing (antiscorbutic).
3 the opposite of (anticlimax).
4 rival (antipope).
5 unlike the conventional form (anti-hero; anti-novel).
6 Physics the antiparticle of a specified particle (antineutrino;
antiproton).
[from or influenced by Greek anti- ‘against’]
And the rest:-
Semite / , / n.
a member of any of the peoples supposed to be descended from Shem, son
of Noah (Gen. 10:21 ff.), including esp. the Jews, Arabs, Assyrians,
Babylonians, and Phoenicians.
Semitism / / n.
Semitist // n.
Semitize // v.tr. (also -ise).
Semitization / / n.
[modern Latin Semita via Late Latin from Greek Sem ‘Shem’]
My dear uneducated imbecile. Did you not try a simple dictionary
before trawling the internet for concordance with your warped ideas?
Like er wow PV, this is very magnanimous of you. I take it that you
will not be driving any JCB's thrugh Palestinian homes then?
You almost begin to sound norma
>>>=========================
SNIP
>>>But go ahead and clip those comments as 'irrelevant' as well.
>>>
Consider it done!
>>
>>I'm reasonably certain a few Christians and Jews have produced
>>equivalent little texts. All parties have had reason to over the
>>centuries.
>>
>And I am reasonably certain you are full of a great deal of horseshit.
>Since I have PRODUCED the text, why don't you PRODUCE what
>you claim is 'equivalent' text? Put up... or admit that you cannot do
>so, Hugh.
I basically cannot be bothered. Honest PV, I know you have led a
sheltered life away from the nastiness of cold reality, but Jews,
Catholics and Proddies have all been known to swear death and
destruction to groups they percieve to be in opposition.
>
>>>>> and your support for
SNIP
>Of course not... in your warped view, the 'point' of Hitler was not
>ACTUALLY one of hostility toward the Jews. The warped, twisted
>mind is yours, sport. By your own admission. I need not 'prove'
>your hostility toward the Jews, since you express it over and over.
>I find the Jews to be among the most intelligent and perceptive of
>our species, for reasons which probably evolved from the persecutions
>they have endured throughout centuries, from those who think as you
>do. And persevered through. As a matter of shear survival from
>those with minds such as yours, who wished to exterminate their
>spirit, their soul, their culture, their tradition, their ethnic roots, and
>even as Hitler... their bodies.
>
>As Einstein (himself a Jew) observed -- "The pursuit of knowledge
>for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice and the desire
>for personal independence-these are the features of the Jewish
>tradition which make me thank my stars that I belong to it." Nor
>did Einstein define being a Jew as you have claimed. Since his
>view was that being a Jew was a shared culture with a historical
>past and common ethical values rather than an institutionalized
>religion.
Like er WOW! I'm impressed!! Mind yo7u wasn't Einstein that e=mc^2
chap? Hardly a sociologist was he now? As for the love of justice bit,
I think you are well aware of my opinions of the abhomination he
helped produce.
I'm sure apart from this, he was a thoroughly "good egg"
though. Although I'm not too sure that I should forgiv him for the
hours I spent pratting about with his theory of relativity &
spaceships going at 0.4C firing lasers :-(
No. But a thick dope like you would find it hard to understand
anything other than blind hate and a "gun everyone looking a bit brown
down" approach.
>And then perhaps you could translate that view into how you see
>the terrorists in Northern Ireland.
Bloody horrible! They are nasty & unsporting, wear silly hat's throw
pipe bombs and prance about in totall tasteless clobber!! Wouldn't
happen in old Blighty you know.
>
>>Your war crimes in Iraq and Guatanamo bay are hardly civilised are
>>they now?
>>
>No war crimes have been committed in Iraq and Guantanamo.
>In fact, only Saddam's regime and al-Quida have committed acts
>which can hardly be characterized as 'civilized.' Witness the
>numberless, unmarked mass graves in Iraq..
You me the ill fated uprising members. Supported then left high & dry
by Bush. What do you suppose would happen in the US or England if an
uprising against the curren dictatorship occured? Slap their hands and
send them on their way?
> and witness the dead
>in the WTC attack. Of course... they mean nothing to you...
>as long as terrorism rules. A rule you obviously support in
>every aspect... from the WTC attack to genocide in Iraq by
>Saddam to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.
Sorry, think again PV.
>>
>>> Their purpose had nothing to do with the
>>>Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but was an attempt by al-Quida to
>>>destroy that infrastructure through terrorism. I did not see them
>>>flying those aircraft into any McDonald's, but rather those
>>>symbols which represent Western prosperity and power.
>>>
>>I think you may have a point with the power bit. It isn't used too
>>wisely is it?
>>
>That's a matter of opinion. Given the fact that I see Europe as
>impotently sitting back doing nothing (other than Blair), it's rather
>relative.
Why not sit back? Iraq wasn't a threat and we are not quite as
desperate to control world oil as you panic stricken lot.
HN
Suzanne
> On 10/08/03 8:42, in article 2dnbjvkok8igk4au5...@4ax.com, "A
> Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 10:19:02 +0100, Hugh Neary <spams...@junk.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:07:55 GMT, foo
> >> <necro...@anothermindlessliberal.com> wrote:
>
> > The BOMB!!! The best thing that ever happened to Japan.
>
> You repeated yourself or did you already forget what you had
> written?
>
I just finished reading this thread as it appears on Google. Earl,
since you are obviously critical of the U.S. using the atom bombs
after Japan attacked the U.S. and waged war on it, what would you
rather have seen the U.S. do?
What was the alternative? You have been told that it would be a very
costly invasion. Would you have preferred a conventional invasion?
It had to be one or the other. So I can only conclude that you would
have preferred a much longer, much more devastating war.
Earl Evleth
1ef0aee.03082...@posting.google.com, "Suzanne" <sus...@attbi.com>
wrote:
> I just finished reading this thread as it appears on Google. Earl,
> since you are obviously critical of the U.S. using the atom bombs
> after Japan attacked the U.S. and waged war on it, what would you
> rather have seen the U.S. do?
Not have used it.
> What was the alternative? You have been told that it would be a very
> costly invasion.
How the alternative, no invasion?
> It had to be one or the other.
Expand your imagination. It did not have to be one or the other.
But have you at least read both of the books I recommended?
Downfall" by Richard Frank (1999). This is a defense of the decision
to drop the bomb
"The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American
Myth" by Gar Alperovitz (1995).
Next, what have you read??
Remember, Japan was economically dead in the water in the Spring of 1945,
oil was not being delivered, energy supplies were diminishing, movement
was within the Government to sue for peace. The Americans were not clear
up until that time about the future of the Emperor, only when surrender
was being arranged did that issue get resolved, he stays. A number of
other errors were made, like engaging the USSR in the war. That alone
clost the Japanese 400,000 lives (the Russians took 600,000 Japanese
off into captivity and only about 200,000 returned).
But basically, I am interested on what you have read to formulate your
opinion. I don't find people have really studied this issue very much.
While most people have a strong opinion on this subject it is usually
not an educated one.
Earl
Jigsaw1695
Thus speaketh Earl, the Worlds Foremost Authority on Everything.
Suzanne
> On 20/08/03 15:17, in article
> 1ef0aee.03082...@posting.google.com, "Suzanne" <sus...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
--------------------------------------------snip
> > It had to be one or the other.
>
> Expand your imagination. It did not have to be one or the other.
OK, then let me engage in some fantasy. The American commanders give
orders for all their soldiers and seamen to disengage and withdraw
from the Pacific theatre, leaving the Japanese to wonder at their
fortune. When they are on the brink of defeat, the enemy miraculously
leaves the battlefield!
"We've whipped 'em enough, let's go home."
Now, back to political reality. Since Japan was one of the nations
responsible for plunging the world into war, the only acceptable end
was for Japan to surrender unconditionally, as Germany did.
>
> But have you at least read both of the books I recommended?
>
> Downfall" by Richard Frank (1999). This is a defense of the decision
> to drop the bomb
>
> "The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American
> Myth" by Gar Alperovitz (1995).
>
> Next, what have you read??
My father saw combat in that war, so I have read extensively about
WWII since my adolescence. I was fascinated with the struggles and
challenges my elders faced in the decade before my birth, and I stood
in awe of them. So I have read many detailed histories of WWII, have
read countless articles, have watched hundreds of miles of documentary
footage.
>
> Remember, Japan was economically dead in the water in the Spring of 1945,
> oil was not being delivered, energy supplies were diminishing, movement
> was within the Government to sue for peace.
But they were still fighting, weren't they? And as far as suing for
peace, I think John Rennie has already pointed out the fallacy of that
argument. Why should the U.S. government have given them the least
bit of benefit of doubt? The Japanese warlords had no intention of
giving up, were quite willing to sacrifice untold masses of their
people, if it came to that.
> The Americans were not clear
> up until that time about the future of the Emperor, only when surrender
> was being arranged did that issue get resolved, he stays.
The Americans were quite clear about the future of the Emperor when
the Potsdam Declaration was issued. They only made it known that
Japan faced "prompt and utter destruction" if they did not surrender,
with the promise that their nation would not be "enslaved as a race or
destroyed as a nation" if they did surrender. An earlier draft
contained a hint that the dynasty would be retained, but was struck
out by the Secretary of State James Byrnes. With waves of kamikazes
taking an appalling toll in the Pacific and Pearl Harbor still fresh
in the public's psyche, any suggestion of appeasement was politically
unacceptable.
> A number of
> other errors were made, like engaging the USSR in the war. That alone
> clost the Japanese 400,000 lives (the Russians took 600,000 Japanese
> off into captivity and only about 200,000 returned).
The errors were Germany and Japan's, for the USSR was engaged in the
war from the moment Hitler launched Barbarosa. Even after Stalin
broke his non-aggression pact with Japan and attacked the Japanese
army in Manchuria, (after Hiroshima and just before Nagasaki) Japan's
Supreme War Council was still defiant. Even after Nagasaki,
Hirohito's two top military advisors were willing to fight on, but it
appears that the three successive mighty blows to Japan (Hiroshima,
Russian attack, and Nagasaki) finally forced the decision.
As for those 400,000 Japanese soldiers in Manchuria who apparently
perished in Stalin's gulags, this is the consequence of the Japanese
army's decision to invade that country. In consideration of the tens
of millions of non-combatants who were variously slaughtered in that
conflict, 400,000 of the chief perps are just not at the top of my
compassion list.
> But basically, I am interested on what you have read to formulate your
> opinion. I don't find people have really studied this issue very much.
> While most people have a strong opinion on this subject it is usually
> not an educated one.
Take my opinion for what it is worth: between a million estimated dead
for an invasion and 100,000 dead from the two bombs, Truman made the
right decision. I know historians will continue to debate that point
like arm-chair quarterbacks, arguing whether this should have been
done or that would have been better.
Earl Evleth
"Suzanne" <sus...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:<BB696402.11EA7%evl...@wanadoo.fr>...
>> On 20/08/03 15:17, in article
>> 1ef0aee.03082...@posting.google.com, "Suzanne" <sus...@attbi.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> Expand your imagination. It did not have to be one or the other.
>
> OK, then let me engage in some fantasy. The American commanders give
> orders for all their soldiers and seamen to disengage and withdraw
> from the Pacific theatre, leaving the Japanese to wonder at their
> fortune. When they are on the brink of defeat, the enemy miraculously
> leaves the battlefield!
The alternative I was talking about was isolating Japan, already
accomplished. Mining of the coastal waters have already sealed
off inter island transport within Japan. Cutting off Korea was
also accomplished. Their industrial base had collapsed.
The overseas Japanese forces were already withering on the vine, which
was a direct results of King`s overall plan to not attempt to take
everything. There is still on going historical debate of the
necessity of taking the Philippines, which was a costly project
mainly only to satisfy MacArthur`s dream of a triumphant return.
King was not "enthusiastic". That invasion provoked the
massacre in Manila.
> "We've whipped 'em enough, let's go home."
No, that is a strawman alternative. Alperovitz, in his book, goes
into the military thinking at the time which was against dropping
the bomb. I also listed Frank`s book because he makes powerful
arguments supporting the dropping of the bombs.
Today`s revisionist try to paint a picture of 100%
support among the US military to drop the bomb with only a few
nutty scientists being against for weakminded humanitarian reasons.
That was not true.
> Now, back to political reality. Since Japan was one of the nations
> responsible for plunging the world into war, the only acceptable end
> was for Japan to surrender unconditionally, as Germany did.
0
Yet the US had planned to remove the Emperor, his not being removed
cause some political backflap in the US. That was negotiated.
We essentially "ad hoc-ed" it at the moment of truth. The actual
wisdom of the "unconditional" surrender policy is another issue.
The desire to want to crush both Germany and Japan, forever more,
was so strong as to be irrational. A more rational policy would
have won both wars earlier and saved a lot more lives. One other
moment of truth occurred when the US played footsy with Vichy
naval and military personnel in late 1942 in Algiers and Morocco.
Mainly because they did not like DeGaulle, too independent. Honor
is often sold cheaply when there are lives to save. Irangate
was the same thing.
>> Next, what have you read??
>
> My father saw combat in that war, so I have read extensively about
> WWII since my adolescence.
I am sure, so have I but I am referring specifically to the bomb issue,
that has a specialized literature. I was influenced by others books,
one is Hiroshima by John Hersey which I read as a teenager when it came
out in 1946. I still own the book. That book led the way to thinking
about the bomb in "another way".
>> Remember, Japan was economically dead in the water in the Spring of 1945,
>> oil was not being delivered, energy supplies were diminishing, movement
>> was within the Government to sue for peace.
>
> But they were still fighting, weren't they?
Sure, and they were planning to use civilians with sharpened bamboo to
attack the invading Americans. They were going to do a Churchillian
defense of the Island, on the beaches, in the streets and the rice fields.
That feel apart when the Emperor said surrender.
Resistance catastrophically collapsed. Catastrophic collapses
are difficult to predict when they will happen, but not that they
will happen. The key issue is to know how to stimulate what will happen.
The US would have had to be more clever than it was with the bomb.
But the facts were that nobody gave a shit about killing a lot of Japs
so that is why the bomb was dropped. In that respect the war had
a pathological effect on Americans.
> And as far as suing for peace, I think John Rennie has already pointed out the
> fallacy of that argument.
I don`t accept that it was fallacious, nor saying that it is makes it so.
> Why should the U.S. government have given them the least
> bit of benefit of doubt? The Japanese warlords had no intention of
> giving up, were quite willing to sacrifice untold masses of their
> people, if it came to that.
Who eventually controlled the hearts and minds of Japan is the question.
The Emperor`s decision to end the war and success in imposing it decided
that question.
>> The Americans were not clear up until that time about the future of the
>> Emperor, only when surrender was being arranged did that issue get resolved,
>> he stays.
Agreed we compromised. US public opinion at the time was happy that the
war was over, so their force was not felt in this matter. But there
was considerable feeling among politicians which felt that the Emperor
should go, be tried and hung as a war criminal. Historical evidence
is available that there was sufficient proof of his deep involvement
with Japanese militarism, sufficient to hang him.
> With waves of kamikazes taking an appalling toll in the Pacific and Pearl
> Harbor still fresh in the public's psyche, any suggestion of appeasement was
> politically unacceptable.
Yet accepted in the case of the Emperor. A wise and pragmatic decision
which essentially demonstrated the false basis of the "unconditional
surrender" policy.
>> A number of
>> other errors were made, like engaging the USSR in the war. That alone
>> clost the Japanese 400,000 lives (the Russians took 600,000 Japanese
>> off into captivity and only about 200,000 returned).
>
> The errors were Germany and Japan's, for the USSR was engaged in the
> war from the moment Hitler launched Barbarosa.
Note that Japan did not attack Russia! For good reason.
> Even after Stalin broke his non-aggression pact with Japan and attacked the
> Japanese army in Manchuria, (after Hiroshima and just before Nagasaki) Japan's
> Supreme War Council was still defiant.
Sure they were, and the lost. The Japanese would not collapse politically
in short period of time, it would take months rather than a few days.
But if the bombs had not been dropped on people the months of September and
October were coming. It is was the blind policy of deciding to invade the
islands which lead to a dropping of the bombs, besides other factors like
Groves having to justify spending all that money and also wanting to get
test strikes to see the effects of the bombs.
Jap civilian lives were not considered important in the greater scheme of
things. It is that inhuman aspect which eventually cost the nation a lot.
The nation was blood thirsty and seeking revenge.
That aspect of the problem is dealt with in "Hiroshima n America"; R. J.
Lifton and G. Mitchell, Avon History (1995), the same authors who
did "Who Owns the Death Penalty". One of the authors is a psychiatrist
which makes his opinion particularly interesting. He addresses the issue
of psychological cost. That damage can not be swept aside.
> As for those 400,000 Japanese soldiers in Manchuria who apparently
> perished in Stalin's gulags, this is the consequence of the Japanese
> army's decision to invade that country. In consideration of the tens
> of millions of non-combatants who were variously slaughtered in that
> conflict, 400,000 of the chief perps are just not at the top of my
> compassion list.
Are you claiming that Japan attacked Russia??? Russia was still
aching to get back at the Japanese for a naval loss 50 years before!
Russia attacked for gain. In doing so, it stripped all the factories
in Manchuria and North China it could. The Russians did not
invade to liberate Manchurian from the Japanese and bring democracy!
It was a safe invasion since the Russian army had already demonstrated
it could defeat the Japanese in battle in 1939, these were the largest tank
battles since WWI. Well fought by the Russians, it took them half
way through the war with the Germans to remember the lesson. that
occurred at the Kursk salient in 1943.
It is where Zhukov gained his reputation, sufficient to withstand
the military stupidities of Stalin in the future. The Japanese
performed badly, poorly lead, organized and poor logistics. This
led the Russians believe that that could devote their forces later
to fighting the Germans and not risk a Japanese invasion of Siberia.
This was backed up by spy information from within Japan, the Japanese
never intended on tacking on the USSR. When Russia attacked the
Japanese were a push over.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
Oh.... Hugh.. you little devil you... You lose... and you begin crying.
>It was a sick, immoral crime against humanity.
>
All war is sick, immoral, and a crime against humanity... However; remember --
Every one of them an authorized definition. Of course we then have the
'supreme arbiter' of the English Language... the Oxford English Dictionary- See
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20anti-Semitism.htm
Quoting = Anti-Semitism -- "Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews.
Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Semitic a."
>Anti- // prefix (also ant- before a vowel or h)
>forming nouns and adjectives meaning:
>1 opposed to; against (antivivisectionism).
>2 preventing (antiscorbutic).
>3 the opposite of (anticlimax).
>4 rival (antipope).
>5 unlike the conventional form (anti-hero; anti-novel).
>6 Physics the antiparticle of a specified particle (antineutrino;
>antiproton).
>[from or influenced by Greek anti- ‘against’]
>
>And the rest:-
>
>
>Semite / , / n.
>a member of any of the peoples supposed to be descended from Shem, son
>of Noah (Gen. 10:21 ff.), including esp. the Jews, Arabs, Assyrians,
>Babylonians, and Phoenicians.
>Semitism / / n.
>Semitist // n.
>Semitize // v.tr. (also -ise).
>Semitization / / n.
>[modern Latin Semita via Late Latin from Greek Sem ‘Shem’]
>
Spoken like a TRUE anti-Semite. A denial of the meaning of the word... which
has a meaning of only recent origin that is not implied within the use of the
prefix anti-. See the OED... it will explain the origin of the WORD 'Anti-Semitic"
dating from 1881, which is quite distinct from anti- Anything other than in the sense
of hostile toward the Jews. But it's typical that you would deny that meaning, since
to not deny it would put a distinct handle on your sickening hate for the
Jews. If it pleases you... you're a Jew-hater. No better than a Nazi who
hoped to exterminate the body of the Jews... you would try to exterminate their
spirit...their soul... their culture... their tradition... and their ethnic roots.
You're a sick man, Hugh... a very sick man. And proof that anti-Semitism is
still growing in Europe.
>My dear uneducated imbecile. Did you not try a simple dictionary
>before trawling the internet for concordance with your warped ideas?
>
Umm... I do believe that the OED is the ULTIMATE dictionary of the
English language. Do you know of a better source that defines the
term anti-Semitic? Don't try to parse it separately in your ignorance.
Provide a definition for the term "anti-Semitic" that does not speak of
hostility toward the Jews.
>>ALL of those recognized sources of definitions within the English language,
No, I will not. Nor have I implied that the Jews are 'right' in respect
to a 'black and white' 'right and wrong' in the Middle East. But I
can presume that you will soon be lashing on a suicide vest, and
paying a visit to a day-nursery in Tel-Aviv.
>You almost begin to sound norma
>>>>=========================
>SNIP
>>>>But go ahead and clip those comments as 'irrelevant' as well.
>>>>
>
>Consider it done!
I knew you would... But you lie the loudest... when you lie to yourself,
Hugh.
>>>
>>>I'm reasonably certain a few Christians and Jews have produced
>>>equivalent little texts. All parties have had reason to over the
>>>centuries.
>>>
Funny enough... you clipped mine, but provided not a one of your own.
Thus, I can only conclude that as I pointed out... you are simply full
of a great deal of horseshit.
>>And I am reasonably certain you are full of a great deal of horseshit.
>>Since I have PRODUCED the text, why don't you PRODUCE what
>>you claim is 'equivalent' text? Put up... or admit that you cannot do
>>so, Hugh.
>
>I basically cannot be bothered. Honest PV, I know you have led a
>sheltered life away from the nastiness of cold reality, but Jews,
>Catholics and Proddies have all been known to swear death and
>destruction to groups they percieve to be in opposition.
>
TRANSLATION ==> I admit I am full of horseshit. But I'm simply
not bothered by my own smell. <==
Proof, sport... I need proof.
LOL... You and Earl...presumably in the same classroom. Don't kid us,
Hugh.... the sixth grade was a struggle for you.
Gee, Hugh... I was SURE you supported the acts of those terrorists
as a 'reasoned response.' Given that you've NEVER provided even a
single comment that condemned the acts... always trying instead to
EXCUSE them, as a result of 'U.S. foreign policy.' Trust you, as
a racist yourself, to try and 'paint' a picture of racism on a response
to the murder of 3,000 innocent humans.
>>And then perhaps you could translate that view into how you see
>>the terrorists in Northern Ireland.
>
>Bloody horrible! They are nasty & unsporting, wear silly hat's throw
>pipe bombs and prance about in totall tasteless clobber!! Wouldn't
>happen in old Blighty you know.
>
Apparently you are another one who finds 'murder' to be a joking matter.
>>
>>>Your war crimes in Iraq and Guatanamo bay are hardly civilised are
>>>they now?
>>>
>>No war crimes have been committed in Iraq and Guantanamo.
>>In fact, only Saddam's regime and al-Quida have committed acts
>>which can hardly be characterized as 'civilized.' Witness the
>>numberless, unmarked mass graves in Iraq..
>
>You me the ill fated uprising members. Supported then left high & dry
>by Bush. What do you suppose would happen in the US or England if an
>uprising against the curren dictatorship occured? Slap their hands and
>send them on their way?
>
That's all bullshit, Hugh... and you know it. We've already been down
that road... and it was called the 'highway of death' by the media as I recall,
which clamored for an end to the war once Kuwait was free. The fact is
that if we had supported that uprising with actual military force, you would
have been among the first to scream 'atrocities committed by the U.S.'
The U.S. had its hands rather tied by the coalition which had now disintegrated,
leaving only a direct U.S. military response or a hoped-for general uprising
which failed.
>> and witness the dead
>>in the WTC attack. Of course... they mean nothing to you...
>>as long as terrorism rules. A rule you obviously support in
>>every aspect... from the WTC attack to genocide in Iraq by
>>Saddam to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.
>
>Sorry, think again PV.
>
Not much of a response there, Hugh. I don't need to 'think again.'
When it's rather clear what's going on in that feeble little mind of yours.
>
>>>
>>>> Their purpose had nothing to do with the
>>>>Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but was an attempt by al-Quida to
>>>>destroy that infrastructure through terrorism. I did not see them
>>>>flying those aircraft into any McDonald's, but rather those
>>>>symbols which represent Western prosperity and power.
>>>>
>>>I think you may have a point with the power bit. It isn't used too
>>>wisely is it?
>>>
>>That's a matter of opinion. Given the fact that I see Europe as
>>impotently sitting back doing nothing (other than Blair), it's rather
>>relative.
>
>Why not sit back? Iraq wasn't a threat and we are not quite as
>desperate to control world oil as you panic stricken lot.
Why not sit back? What a question? Presumable your answer to the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, as well. Why not just sit back? We
can't sit back, Hugh... because 3,000 humans were murdered on our
soil, by Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.
PV
>
>HN
>
>
Suzanne
----------------------------snip
> accomplished. Mining of the coastal waters have already sealed
> off inter island transport within Japan. Cutting off Korea was
> also accomplished. Their industrial base had collapsed.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Japan was losing, and was reeling from
the blows it was receiving on all fronts. The question was how much
longer was the war going to drag on, how many more Allies and Japanese
were going to die because of the fierce warrior pride of the losers?
I know their situation was dire, but precisely how was your
alternative of not invading Japan BUT ALSO not using Little Boy/Fat
Man going to get Japan to surrender? How many more months or years
would the war have to go on before Japan would surrender, or does your
alternative not even include an unconditional surrender of Japan?
---------------------snip
> > "We've whipped 'em enough, let's go home."
>
> No, that is a strawman alternative. Alperovitz, in his book, goes
> into the military thinking at the time which was against dropping
> the bomb. I also listed Frank`s book because he makes powerful
> arguments supporting the dropping of the bombs.
>
> Today`s revisionist try to paint a picture of 100%
> support among the US military to drop the bomb with only a few
> nutty scientists being against for weakminded humanitarian reasons.
I don't think so. I have in my hands right here _Reader's Digest
Great Events of the 20th Century_. I'm sure you are familiar with how
conservative Reader's Digest is.
(on the Decision) "Many scientists and even some top military men
urged alternatives--warning the Japanese, demonstrating the bomb on an
unpopulated area before using it on a major city, or concluding the
war by conventional means--but their suggestions were rejected as
impractical. JAPAN'S DETERMINATION WAS WELL KNOWN (caps mine),and
conventional warfare would take too long, especially in view of the
Soviet threat" (page 362).
"In June , a final plea from a scientific community under James Franck
stated that the atomic bombing of Japan would place the United States
in an untenable moral position, but the plea was rejected" (page 365).
I don't see any attempt to hide the objections of military men or to
belittle the scientists here. BTW, I usually take revisionism to mean
something much more egregious, such as flat denial of events like the
Holocaust, to try to rewrite history and influence minds that things
like the Nazi exterminations never even happened at all.
-----------------------------snip
> >> Remember, Japan was economically dead in the water in the Spring of 1945,
> >> oil was not being delivered, energy supplies were diminishing, movement
> >> was within the Government to sue for peace.
> >
> > But they were still fighting, weren't they?
>
> Sure, and they were planning to use civilians with sharpened bamboo to
> attack the invading Americans. They were going to do a Churchillian
> defense of the Island, on the beaches, in the streets and the rice fields.
>
> That feel apart when the Emperor said surrender.
After Hiroshima, when he made the speech about enduring the
unendurable, etc? Of course, that was the whole idea.
> Resistance catastrophically collapsed. Catastrophic collapses
> are difficult to predict when they will happen, but not that they
> will happen. The key issue is to know how to stimulate what will happen.
> The US would have had to be more clever than it was with the bomb.
> But the facts were that nobody gave a shit about killing a lot of Japs
> so that is why the bomb was dropped.
It was not dropped because "nobody gave a shit about killing a lot of
Japs" it was dropped to get the war over ASAP, with less cost in lives
for both sides. For certain, the public sentiment against Japan was
high. But the public didn't make the decision. Truman made the
decision.
> In that respect the war had
> a pathological effect on Americans.
You fail to recognize political reality. You expect the war-mobilized
American public to be well-disposed towards the enemy that picked this
fight with us, even as families all across the country continued to
receive telegrams notifying them of the deaths their own.
>
----------------------------------snip
> > With waves of kamikazes taking an appalling toll in the Pacific and Pearl
> > Harbor still fresh in the public's psyche, any suggestion of appeasement was
> > politically unacceptable.
>
> Yet accepted in the case of the Emperor. A wise and pragmatic decision
> which essentially demonstrated the false basis of the "unconditional
> surrender" policy.
The fate of the Emperor was no where stated in the Potsdam ultimatum
delivered to the Japanese. The details of how best to win the hearts
and minds by retaining the venerated Emperor came about after the
surrender documents were signed.
> Sure they were, and the lost. The Japanese would not collapse politically
> in short period of time, it would take months rather than a few days.
> But if the bombs had not been dropped on people the months of September and
> October were coming. It is was the blind policy of deciding to invade the
> islands which lead to a dropping of the bombs, besides other factors like
> Groves having to justify spending all that money and also wanting to get
> test strikes to see the effects of the bombs.
You still haven't explained how your third alternative was going to
produce a complete surrender from Japan. Is Japan's surrrender even
part of this alternative?
> Jap civilian lives were not considered important in the greater scheme of
> things. It is that inhuman aspect which eventually cost the nation a lot.
> The nation was blood thirsty and seeking revenge.
The nation was at war, Earl, and brought the war to an end by the most
expedient means and least cost of Japanese lives possible. If you
want to criticize the Allies in general and the U.S. in particular,
why don't you talk about the incineration of Dresden? The fire
bombing of Tokyo? Of all the open cities that were obliterated in
WWII by waves of bombers, why do you fault the U.S. and talk about how
inhumane and pathological Americans were for using the bomb? For
certain, a longer war using the alternative you suggest would have
meant more bombing of Japanese cities, resulting in far more deaths.
Or does your alternative call for cessation of all on-going bombing
campaigns against Japan?
---------------------------snip
> Are you claiming that Japan attacked Russia???
No. I'm saying that Japan attacked Manchuria, and that Russia
attacked the Japanese army stationed in Manchuria. It seemed you were
blaming the U.S. for Russia's involvement, and therefore blaming the
U.S. for the 400,000 Japanese POWs who apparently died in Soviet
labor camps. I was pointing out that the Japanese brought those
losses on themselves by choosing to invade Manchuria.
-------------------------------snip
Paul Robinson
"Rape of Nanking."
--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."