Religions > Atheism > OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JPG" |
| Date: |
07 Jul 2005 06:18:45 AM |
| Object: |
OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
Seems like the act of typical cowardly religious bigots who disapprove of the
fact that we don't prostrate ourselves at the feet of their magic sky pixie. I
can't believe that even the anti-globalisation idiots who have been rioting at
the G8 summit would be quite so cowardly.
With Britain leading the way to end poverty in the third world, one of the major
beefs of the terrorist organisations, it seems doubly unfair that the bastards
should attack London, and just after the Olympics announcement as well.
It's a fair bet that someone's religion has a lot to do with it. ***** religion.
JPG
.
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
08 Jul 2005 06:26:05 PM |
|
|
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:laasc11tdp92krner7sj3j7k519uvgi9b5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:31:20 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
As for terrorism being as bad before, again that is crap. This is the
worst terrorist attack Britain has ever seen.
Lockerby.
The bombings in WWII.
The bombings in WWII were terrorism? I guess the bombs on Japan were
as well, then.
The bombings BY the Germans that deliberately targeted civilians to the
exclusion of any military targets...by a regime that was merrily gassing
millions upon millions of people in concentration camps....yeah. Those were.
One could, if one stretched it, call the atomic bombs on Japan targeting
civilians, except for one small problem; the fact that the Japanese had
vowed, and had every intention of keeping that vow, that every Japanese,
man, woman, and child, would fight until their own deaths before they would
admit defeat. They figured that WE wouldn't keep throwing soldiers in harms
way when we would have to literally exterminate the entire Japanese
population in order to win the war; it would be far too costly for us. A
very proud people, the Japanese.
However, when they realized that we COULD exterminate the entire population
of their nation without losing even one more American life, that pride was
satisfied; one SHOULD fight to the death if there was some hope of taking
your enemy with you. But to continue to fight in the face of such weapons as
the atomic bomb is not courage. It is insanity. It was like challenging a
tidal wave with a sand bag. There was no shame in surrendering in the face
of that, any more than there is shame in running from a tsunami.
And we warned them.
And we saved many, many thousands of more lives by using it, including
Japanese lives, than had we not used them.
......and now we know what such weapons can do. You will notice that WE have
not used them again, nor has anyone else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "I KILLED YOUR GOD-IT WAS EASY!" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
09 Jul 2005 09:35:26 AM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:hYDze.88$Gk4.29@trnddc01...
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:laasc11tdp92krner7sj3j7k519uvgi9b5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:31:20 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
As for terrorism being as bad before, again that is crap. This is the
worst terrorist attack Britain has ever seen.
Lockerby.
The bombings in WWII.
The bombings in WWII were terrorism? I guess the bombs on Japan were
as well, then.
The bombings BY the Germans that deliberately targeted civilians to the
exclusion of any military targets...by a regime that was merrily gassing
millions upon millions of people in concentration camps....yeah. Those
were.
One could, if one stretched it, call the atomic bombs on Japan targeting
civilians, except for one small problem; the fact that the Japanese had
vowed, and had every intention of keeping that vow, that every Japanese,
man, woman, and child, would fight until their own deaths before they
would
admit defeat. They figured that WE wouldn't keep throwing soldiers in
harms
way when we would have to literally exterminate the entire Japanese
population in order to win the war; it would be far too costly for us. A
very proud people, the Japanese.
However, when they realized that we COULD exterminate the entire
population
of their nation without losing even one more American life, that pride was
satisfied; one SHOULD fight to the death if there was some hope of taking
your enemy with you. But to continue to fight in the face of such weapons
as
the atomic bomb is not courage. It is insanity. It was like challenging a
tidal wave with a sand bag. There was no shame in surrendering in the face
of that, any more than there is shame in running from a tsunami.
And we warned them.
And we saved many, many thousands of more lives by using it, including
Japanese lives, than had we not used them.
.....and now we know what such weapons can do. You will notice that WE
have
not used them again, nor has anyone else.
ya know something dianac,sometimes you make sense.
--
***** of this world.defender of the faith.
AA #2241.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
11 Jul 2005 11:21:06 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:26:05 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:laasc11tdp92krner7sj3j7k519uvgi9b5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:31:20 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
As for terrorism being as bad before, again that is crap. This is the
worst terrorist attack Britain has ever seen.
Lockerby.
The bombings in WWII.
The bombings in WWII were terrorism? I guess the bombs on Japan were
as well, then.
The bombings BY the Germans that deliberately targeted civilians to the
exclusion of any military targets...by a regime that was merrily gassing
millions upon millions of people in concentration camps....yeah. Those were.
One could, if one stretched it, call the atomic bombs on Japan targeting
civilians, except for one small problem; the fact that the Japanese had
vowed, and had every intention of keeping that vow, that every Japanese,
man, woman, and child, would fight until their own deaths before they would
admit defeat. They figured that WE wouldn't keep throwing soldiers in harms
way when we would have to literally exterminate the entire Japanese
population in order to win the war; it would be far too costly for us. A
very proud people, the Japanese.
However, when they realized that we COULD exterminate the entire population
of their nation without losing even one more American life, that pride was
satisfied; one SHOULD fight to the death if there was some hope of taking
your enemy with you. But to continue to fight in the face of such weapons as
the atomic bomb is not courage. It is insanity. It was like challenging a
tidal wave with a sand bag. There was no shame in surrendering in the face
of that, any more than there is shame in running from a tsunami.
And we warned them.
And we saved many, many thousands of more lives by using it, including
Japanese lives, than had we not used them.
.....and now we know what such weapons can do. You will notice that WE have
not used them again, nor has anyone else.
All this post tells me is that you are prepared to justify absolutely
any actions carried out by your own country, no matter how dreadful
they are. Our armies continue to use weapons which they know will
result in huge numbers of civilian casualties, but it's all justified
because it's a war. If anyone else uses the same tactics it's
terrorism. This makes no sense - it's just inconsistent. If violence
during a war can be justified, no matter which side is involved, then
it is not terrorism. The German bombing of London was no different to
the Allied bombing of places like Dresden. If one was an act of
terrorism then so was the other - and the dropping of nucelar bombs on
Japan was no different. No military targets were involved. The point
was to kill as many innocent people as possible.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
09 Jul 2005 09:46:48 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:26:05 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:laasc11tdp92krner7sj3j7k519uvgi9b5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:31:20 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
As for terrorism being as bad before, again that is crap. This is the
worst terrorist attack Britain has ever seen.
Lockerby.
The bombings in WWII.
The bombings in WWII were terrorism? I guess the bombs on Japan were
as well, then.
The bombings BY the Germans that deliberately targeted civilians to the
exclusion of any military targets...by a regime that was merrily gassing
millions upon millions of people in concentration camps....yeah. Those were.
Germany was being carpet-bombed. The intention was to demoralize the
civilian population. Civilians were delibrately trageted.
One could, if one stretched it, call the atomic bombs on Japan targeting
civilians, except for one small problem; the fact that the Japanese had
vowed, and had every intention of keeping that vow, that every Japanese,
man, woman, and child, would fight until their own deaths before they would
admit defeat. They figured that WE wouldn't keep throwing soldiers in harms
way when we would have to literally exterminate the entire Japanese
population in order to win the war; it would be far too costly for us. A
very proud people, the Japanese.
You know for a fact that the bombastic statements of the Japanese
government described what the population would actually do? Hitler
also swore that the Germans would fight to the last man.
However, when they realized that we COULD exterminate the entire population
of their nation without losing even one more American life, that pride was
satisfied; one SHOULD fight to the death if there was some hope of taking
your enemy with you. But to continue to fight in the face of such weapons as
the atomic bomb is not courage. It is insanity. It was like challenging a
tidal wave with a sand bag. There was no shame in surrendering in the face
of that, any more than there is shame in running from a tsunami.
And we warned them.
And we saved many, many thousands of more lives by using it, including
Japanese lives, than had we not used them.
The thin justification the above provides for the first bomb does not
justify the second attack.
.....and now we know what such weapons can do. You will notice that WE have
not used them again, nor has anyone else.
That could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that the US
is not the only country that has such weapons? In 1945 it was. The
US attacked Iraq but did not attack North Korea. The difference being
that one just might have nuclear weapons, while the other did not.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
09 Jul 2005 10:55:53 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:i7mvc19ve0dv40tdubikattenftip5anka@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:26:05 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:laasc11tdp92krner7sj3j7k519uvgi9b5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:31:20 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
As for terrorism being as bad before, again that is crap. This is the
worst terrorist attack Britain has ever seen.
Lockerby.
The bombings in WWII.
The bombings in WWII were terrorism? I guess the bombs on Japan were
as well, then.
The bombings BY the Germans that deliberately targeted civilians to the
exclusion of any military targets...by a regime that was merrily gassing
millions upon millions of people in concentration camps....yeah. Those
were.
Germany was being carpet-bombed. The intention was to demoralize the
civilian population. Civilians were delibrately trageted.
One could, if one stretched it, call the atomic bombs on Japan targeting
civilians, except for one small problem; the fact that the Japanese had
vowed, and had every intention of keeping that vow, that every Japanese,
man, woman, and child, would fight until their own deaths before they
would
admit defeat. They figured that WE wouldn't keep throwing soldiers in
harms
way when we would have to literally exterminate the entire Japanese
population in order to win the war; it would be far too costly for us. A
very proud people, the Japanese.
You know for a fact that the bombastic statements of the Japanese
government described what the population would actually do? Hitler
also swore that the Germans would fight to the last man.
I have a great deal of respect for the Japanese, y'know. Their culture,
their history....yeah, they would have done it. The Germans? No.
However, when they realized that we COULD exterminate the entire
population
of their nation without losing even one more American life, that pride was
satisfied; one SHOULD fight to the death if there was some hope of taking
your enemy with you. But to continue to fight in the face of such weapons
as
the atomic bomb is not courage. It is insanity. It was like challenging a
tidal wave with a sand bag. There was no shame in surrendering in the face
of that, any more than there is shame in running from a tsunami.
And we warned them.
And we saved many, many thousands of more lives by using it, including
Japanese lives, than had we not used them.
The thin justification the above provides for the first bomb does not
justify the second attack.
Yes it does. Notice; the Japanese didn't surrender after the first one. It
TOOK two.
.....and now we know what such weapons can do. You will notice that WE
have
not used them again, nor has anyone else.
That could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that the US
is not the only country that has such weapons? In 1945 it was. The
US attacked Iraq but did not attack North Korea. The difference being
that one just might have nuclear weapons, while the other did not.
Actually, I think it has something to do with the fact that we WERE the
first and remained able to destroy other nations with them. Since other
nations who came to have them knew that push come to shove, we would use
them (since we actually did use them) that kept THEM sane. Or almost. Those
missiles in Cuba weren't there simply for show, I think that they were
actually intended for use.
(shrug)
The danger now isn't in nations having nukes. What is that line from the
movie, about not worrying if a country has nukes, one should worry about one
terrorist having one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
09 Jul 2005 04:12:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:55:53 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:i7mvc19ve0dv40tdubikattenftip5anka@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:26:05 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:laasc11tdp92krner7sj3j7k519uvgi9b5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:31:20 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
As for terrorism being as bad before, again that is crap. This is the
worst terrorist attack Britain has ever seen.
Lockerby.
The bombings in WWII.
The bombings in WWII were terrorism? I guess the bombs on Japan were
as well, then.
The bombings BY the Germans that deliberately targeted civilians to the
exclusion of any military targets...by a regime that was merrily gassing
millions upon millions of people in concentration camps....yeah. Those
were.
Germany was being carpet-bombed. The intention was to demoralize the
civilian population. Civilians were delibrately trageted.
One could, if one stretched it, call the atomic bombs on Japan targeting
civilians, except for one small problem; the fact that the Japanese had
vowed, and had every intention of keeping that vow, that every Japanese,
man, woman, and child, would fight until their own deaths before they
would
admit defeat. They figured that WE wouldn't keep throwing soldiers in
harms
way when we would have to literally exterminate the entire Japanese
population in order to win the war; it would be far too costly for us. A
very proud people, the Japanese.
You know for a fact that the bombastic statements of the Japanese
government described what the population would actually do? Hitler
also swore that the Germans would fight to the last man.
I have a great deal of respect for the Japanese, y'know. Their culture,
their history....yeah, they would have done it. The Germans? No.
I am sure that the Japanese would be gratified to know that you
believe they were worthy to have two nuclear bombs dropped on them.
However, when they realized that we COULD exterminate the entire
population
of their nation without losing even one more American life, that pride was
satisfied; one SHOULD fight to the death if there was some hope of taking
your enemy with you. But to continue to fight in the face of such weapons
as
the atomic bomb is not courage. It is insanity. It was like challenging a
tidal wave with a sand bag. There was no shame in surrendering in the face
of that, any more than there is shame in running from a tsunami.
And we warned them.
And we saved many, many thousands of more lives by using it, including
Japanese lives, than had we not used them.
The thin justification the above provides for the first bomb does not
justify the second attack.
Yes it does. Notice; the Japanese didn't surrender after the first one. It
TOOK two.
Their was no time. They were trying to contact the Americans through
the Swiss. Nobody was responding. The second bomb was dropped very
soon after the second. Apparently the US was in a hurry to use it.
.....and now we know what such weapons can do. You will notice that WE
have
not used them again, nor has anyone else.
That could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that the US
is not the only country that has such weapons? In 1945 it was. The
US attacked Iraq but did not attack North Korea. The difference being
that one just might have nuclear weapons, while the other did not.
Actually, I think it has something to do with the fact that we WERE the
first and remained able to destroy other nations with them. Since other
nations who came to have them knew that push come to shove, we would use
them (since we actually did use them) that kept THEM sane. Or almost. Those
missiles in Cuba weren't there simply for show, I think that they were
actually intended for use.
I see. The others were afraid of the US, but the US was not afraid of
the others. You know that is not how I remember the 50's and 60's.
Even US strategists indicated that both sides were held in check by
the very real possibility of the world being destroyed - remember
M.A.D.? On the other hand, you probably know better. No doubt North
Korea, an actual threat to the region, is not being attacked because
of the famous Bush restraint not because of any worries about a
possible nuclear war in Asia.
Seriously the message given by Bush is that any nation that can
develop a nuclear capacity should. That being one way to make him
think twice before attacking.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
09 Jul 2005 04:36:34 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:voe0d1pmtlf81mtgqb7i1l94csfoiguj58@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:55:53 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:i7mvc19ve0dv40tdubikattenftip5anka@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:26:05 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:laasc11tdp92krner7sj3j7k519uvgi9b5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:31:20 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
As for terrorism being as bad before, again that is crap. This is
the
worst terrorist attack Britain has ever seen.
Lockerby.
The bombings in WWII.
The bombings in WWII were terrorism? I guess the bombs on Japan were
as well, then.
The bombings BY the Germans that deliberately targeted civilians to the
exclusion of any military targets...by a regime that was merrily gassing
millions upon millions of people in concentration camps....yeah. Those
were.
Germany was being carpet-bombed. The intention was to demoralize the
civilian population. Civilians were delibrately trageted.
One could, if one stretched it, call the atomic bombs on Japan targeting
civilians, except for one small problem; the fact that the Japanese had
vowed, and had every intention of keeping that vow, that every Japanese,
man, woman, and child, would fight until their own deaths before they
would
admit defeat. They figured that WE wouldn't keep throwing soldiers in
harms
way when we would have to literally exterminate the entire Japanese
population in order to win the war; it would be far too costly for us. A
very proud people, the Japanese.
You know for a fact that the bombastic statements of the Japanese
government described what the population would actually do? Hitler
also swore that the Germans would fight to the last man.
I have a great deal of respect for the Japanese, y'know. Their culture,
their history....yeah, they would have done it. The Germans? No.
I am sure that the Japanese would be gratified to know that you
believe they were worthy to have two nuclear bombs dropped on them.
THEY thought it took two.
Determined people, the Japanese.
However, when they realized that we COULD exterminate the entire
population
of their nation without losing even one more American life, that pride
was
satisfied; one SHOULD fight to the death if there was some hope of
taking
your enemy with you. But to continue to fight in the face of such
weapons
as
the atomic bomb is not courage. It is insanity. It was like challenging
a
tidal wave with a sand bag. There was no shame in surrendering in the
face
of that, any more than there is shame in running from a tsunami.
And we warned them.
And we saved many, many thousands of more lives by using it, including
Japanese lives, than had we not used them.
The thin justification the above provides for the first bomb does not
justify the second attack.
Yes it does. Notice; the Japanese didn't surrender after the first one. It
TOOK two.
Their was no time. They were trying to contact the Americans through
the Swiss. Nobody was responding. The second bomb was dropped very
soon after the second. Apparently the US was in a hurry to use it.
And your source for this bit of inaccuracy is, what, exactly?
.....and now we know what such weapons can do. You will notice that WE
have
not used them again, nor has anyone else.
That could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that the US
is not the only country that has such weapons? In 1945 it was. The
US attacked Iraq but did not attack North Korea. The difference being
that one just might have nuclear weapons, while the other did not.
Actually, I think it has something to do with the fact that we WERE the
first and remained able to destroy other nations with them. Since other
nations who came to have them knew that push come to shove, we would use
them (since we actually did use them) that kept THEM sane. Or almost.
Those
missiles in Cuba weren't there simply for show, I think that they were
actually intended for use.
I see. The others were afraid of the US, but the US was not afraid of
the others. You know that is not how I remember the 50's and 60's.
Even US strategists indicated that both sides were held in check by
the very real possibility of the world being destroyed - remember
M.A.D.?
I didn't say we were not afraid of the others. If we had not been afraid of
'the others', why would we have kept our stockpiles high? You have a
problem reading?
On the other hand, you probably know better. No doubt North
Korea, an actual threat to the region, is not being attacked because
of the famous Bush restraint not because of any worries about a
possible nuclear war in Asia.
Seriously the message given by Bush is that any nation that can
develop a nuclear capacity should. That being one way to make him
think twice before attacking.
I think the way to 'make him think twice about attacking' is to stop giving
the people around them grief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
10 Jul 2005 09:00:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:36:34 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:voe0d1pmtlf81mtgqb7i1l94csfoiguj58@4ax.com...
snip
One could, if one stretched it, call the atomic bombs on Japan targeting
civilians, except for one small problem; the fact that the Japanese had
vowed, and had every intention of keeping that vow, that every Japanese,
man, woman, and child, would fight until their own deaths before they
would
admit defeat. They figured that WE wouldn't keep throwing soldiers in
harms
way when we would have to literally exterminate the entire Japanese
population in order to win the war; it would be far too costly for us. A
very proud people, the Japanese.
You know for a fact that the bombastic statements of the Japanese
government described what the population would actually do? Hitler
also swore that the Germans would fight to the last man.
I have a great deal of respect for the Japanese, y'know. Their culture,
their history....yeah, they would have done it. The Germans? No.
I am sure that the Japanese would be gratified to know that you
believe they were worthy to have two nuclear bombs dropped on them.
THEY thought it took two.
Determined people, the Japanese.
snip
And we saved many, many thousands of more lives by using it, including
Japanese lives, than had we not used them.
The thin justification the above provides for the first bomb does not
justify the second attack.
Yes it does. Notice; the Japanese didn't surrender after the first one. It
TOOK two.
Their was no time. They were trying to contact the Americans through
the Swiss. Nobody was responding. The second bomb was dropped very
soon after the second. Apparently the US was in a hurry to use it.
And your source for this bit of inaccuracy is, what, exactly?
Such a plesant tone you take! Here are a few quotes for you to
consider; should you need more just ask:
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
.....and now we know what such weapons can do. You will notice that WE
have
not used them again, nor has anyone else.
That could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that the US
is not the only country that has such weapons? In 1945 it was. The
US attacked Iraq but did not attack North Korea. The difference being
that one just might have nuclear weapons, while the other did not.
Actually, I think it has something to do with the fact that we WERE the
first and remained able to destroy other nations with them. Since other
nations who came to have them knew that push come to shove, we would use
them (since we actually did use them) that kept THEM sane. Or almost.
Those
missiles in Cuba weren't there simply for show, I think that they were
actually intended for use.
I see. The others were afraid of the US, but the US was not afraid of
the others. You know that is not how I remember the 50's and 60's.
Even US strategists indicated that both sides were held in check by
the very real possibility of the world being destroyed - remember
M.A.D.?
I didn't say we were not afraid of the others. If we had not been afraid of
'the others', why would we have kept our stockpiles high? You have a
problem reading?
I apologise. I thought you were disagreeing with my opinion that a
major reason the US never used the weapon again was that it no longer
the only nation with such weapons. It could use it with impunity
against Japan. That situation never existed again. I also pointed
out the example of North Korea, called a major threat just like Iraq
was, yet never attacked; the major difference being that North Korea
very possibly has nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, you probably know better. No doubt North
Korea, an actual threat to the region, is not being attacked because
of the famous Bush restraint not because of any worries about a
possible nuclear war in Asia.
Seriously the message given by Bush is that any nation that can
develop a nuclear capacity should. That being one way to make him
think twice before attacking.
I think the way to 'make him think twice about attacking' is to stop giving
the people around them grief.
Would North Korea be an example? It is, by all accounts a very nasty
regime, and has been a constant threat to its neighbors for a long
time. Unlike Iraq and Hussein, it has never been a friend of the US,
but, for some reason or other, it has not been attacked; even though
it still behaves rather badly. One can only conclude that nuclear
weapons make up a major part of the explanation for the US's
restraint.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
10 Jul 2005 10:25:31 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:f5a2d1dso5pgdonhdp03s99e8tg64b37kr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:36:34 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:voe0d1pmtlf81mtgqb7i1l94csfoiguj58@4ax.com...
snip
One could, if one stretched it, call the atomic bombs on Japan
targeting
civilians, except for one small problem; the fact that the Japanese
had
vowed, and had every intention of keeping that vow, that every
Japanese,
man, woman, and child, would fight until their own deaths before they
would
admit defeat. They figured that WE wouldn't keep throwing soldiers in
harms
way when we would have to literally exterminate the entire Japanese
population in order to win the war; it would be far too costly for us.
A
very proud people, the Japanese.
You know for a fact that the bombastic statements of the Japanese
government described what the population would actually do? Hitler
also swore that the Germans would fight to the last man.
I have a great deal of respect for the Japanese, y'know. Their culture,
their history....yeah, they would have done it. The Germans? No.
I am sure that the Japanese would be gratified to know that you
believe they were worthy to have two nuclear bombs dropped on them.
THEY thought it took two.
Determined people, the Japanese.
snip
And we saved many, many thousands of more lives by using it, including
Japanese lives, than had we not used them.
The thin justification the above provides for the first bomb does not
justify the second attack.
Yes it does. Notice; the Japanese didn't surrender after the first one.
It
TOOK two.
Their was no time. They were trying to contact the Americans through
the Swiss. Nobody was responding. The second bomb was dropped very
soon after the second. Apparently the US was in a hurry to use it.
And your source for this bit of inaccuracy is, what, exactly?
Such a plesant tone you take! Here are a few quotes for you to
consider; should you need more just ask:
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters
in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an
atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number
of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary,
upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of
the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a
vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a
feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on
the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping
the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that
our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon
whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary
was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit
them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional
weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening.
My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an
ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not
taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying
women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction
to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan:
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender
unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was
appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor,
and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible
anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless
he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was
conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign.
Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Interesting quotes. However, none of them address the specific issue that
you claimed, that after the first bomb, the Japanese were frantically
attempting to contact us through the Swiss in order to surrender, but we
weren't paying attention. That is simply incorrect.
.....and now we know what such weapons can do. You will notice that WE
have
not used them again, nor has anyone else.
That could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that the US
is not the only country that has such weapons? In 1945 it was. The
US attacked Iraq but did not attack North Korea. The difference being
that one just might have nuclear weapons, while the other did not.
Actually, I think it has something to do with the fact that we WERE the
first and remained able to destroy other nations with them. Since other
nations who came to have them knew that push come to shove, we would use
them (since we actually did use them) that kept THEM sane. Or almost.
Those
missiles in Cuba weren't there simply for show, I think that they were
actually intended for use.
I see. The others were afraid of the US, but the US was not afraid of
the others. You know that is not how I remember the 50's and 60's.
Even US strategists indicated that both sides were held in check by
the very real possibility of the world being destroyed - remember
M.A.D.?
I didn't say we were not afraid of the others. If we had not been afraid
of
'the others', why would we have kept our stockpiles high? You have a
problem reading?
I apologise. I thought you were disagreeing with my opinion that a
major reason the US never used the weapon again was that it no longer
the only nation with such weapons. It could use it with impunity
against Japan. That situation never existed again. I also pointed
out the example of North Korea, called a major threat just like Iraq
was, yet never attacked; the major difference being that North Korea
very possibly has nuclear weapons.
Actually, I got the impression that your claim was slightly more emphatic;
that the only reason the US didn't use them again was because other nations
had them. Which of course doesn't explain the situation in N.Korea the first
time.
On the other hand, you probably know better. No doubt North
Korea, an actual threat to the region, is not being attacked because
of the famous Bush restraint not because of any worries about a
possible nuclear war in Asia.
Seriously the message given by Bush is that any nation that can
develop a nuclear capacity should. That being one way to make him
think twice before attacking.
I think the way to 'make him think twice about attacking' is to stop
giving
the people around them grief.
Would North Korea be an example? It is, by all accounts a very nasty
regime, and has been a constant threat to its neighbors for a long
time. Unlike Iraq and Hussein, it has never been a friend of the US,
but, for some reason or other, it has not been attacked; even though
it still behaves rather badly. One can only conclude that nuclear
weapons make up a major part of the explanation for the US's
restraint.
It's not nuclear weapons so much as it is priorities.
Perhaps the fact that N. Korea may have nuclear weapons may prompt just such
an action on our part; once THEY have them, they WILL use them as a
terrorist would, without any compunctions at all. That's pretty scary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
10 Jul 2005 02:26:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:25:31 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:f5a2d1dso5pgdonhdp03s99e8tg64b37kr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:36:34 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:voe0d1pmtlf81mtgqb7i1l94csfoiguj58@4ax.com...
snip
One could, if one stretched it, call the atomic bombs on Japan
targeting
civilians, except for one small problem; the fact that the Japanese
had
vowed, and had every intention of keeping that vow, that every
Japanese,
man, woman, and child, would fight until their own deaths before they
would
admit defeat. They figured that WE wouldn't keep throwing soldiers in
harms
way when we would have to literally exterminate the entire Japanese
population in order to win the war; it would be far too costly for us.
A
very proud people, the Japanese.
You know for a fact that the bombastic statements of the Japanese
government described what the population would actually do? Hitler
also swore that the Germans would fight to the last man.
I have a great deal of respect for the Japanese, y'know. Their culture,
their history....yeah, they would have done it. The Germans? No.
I am sure that the Japanese would be gratified to know that you
believe they were worthy to have two nuclear bombs dropped on them.
THEY thought it took two.
Determined people, the Japanese.
snip
And we saved many, many thousands of more lives by using it, including
Japanese lives, than had we not used them.
The thin justification the above provides for the first bomb does not
justify the second attack.
Yes it does. Notice; the Japanese didn't surrender after the first one.
It
TOOK two.
Their was no time. They were trying to contact the Americans through
the Swiss. Nobody was responding. The second bomb was dropped very
soon after the second. Apparently the US was in a hurry to use it.
And your source for this bit of inaccuracy is, what, exactly?
Such a plesant tone you take! Here are a few quotes for you to
consider; should you need more just ask:
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters
in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an
atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number
of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary,
upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of
the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a
vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a
feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on
the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping
the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that
our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon
whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary
was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit
them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional
weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening.
My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an
ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not
taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying
women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction
to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan:
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender
unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was
appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor,
and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible
anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless
he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was
conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign.
Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Interesting quotes. However, none of them address the specific issue that
you claimed, that after the first bomb, the Japanese were frantically
attempting to contact us through the Swiss in order to surrender, but we
weren't paying attention. That is simply incorrect.
I actually predicted to myself that you would answer the way you did,
but then I figured that I wasn't being fair; that you couldn't
possibly be that petty. Apparently my first reaction was correct,
which I think is very sad.
The point of disagreement was whether or not the Japanese wanted to
surrender or were likely to surrender. You insisted that they were
not. I believe that I have established that they were. In the quotes
I was able to find in a short time it was the Russians who the
Japanese were contacting in an attempt to obtain more information.
That does not mean that they did not also contact the Swiss or any
other intermediary they thought would help, it is also totally
irrelevant to the point. No doubt if I spent a little more time on it
I could find documentation of an attempt by the Japanese to solicit
Swiss help, but it would not make your error concerning the Japanese
government's unwillingness to surrender any more documented than it
already is with the quotes I did supply.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
10 Jul 2005 07:42:01 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jks2d1937a6ma4plgidc7haoat5ei7ddao@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:25:31 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Interesting quotes. However, none of them address the specific issue that
you claimed, that after the first bomb, the Japanese were frantically
attempting to contact us through the Swiss in order to surrender, but we
weren't paying attention. That is simply incorrect.
I actually predicted to myself that you would answer the way you did,
but then I figured that I wasn't being fair; that you couldn't
possibly be that petty. Apparently my first reaction was correct,
which I think is very sad.
You made a specific claim. It's not petty to expect your response to back up
that specific claim, you know.
As to what those quotes DO say, it is that these men didn't think that the
bombs should have been used in the first place. However, I have very
personal insight into this; my father was a very young sailor on a ship
called the USS Sangay, an ammunitions ship that had been involved in most of
the pivotal battles of the Pacific. He knew, along with all his shipmates
and all those who were serving with him and had also been told that they
were headed for Japan, that they WERE going to have to invade, and that the
Japanese WERE going to fight to the very last breath of the very last
person, in order to take the Americans with them. Dad had shot down,
personally, one, perhaps two, Kamikaze planes, and avoided being turned into
atoms himself when a third decided that the destroyer behind them was a more
attractive target. Ironically, if that last young representative of the
'divine wind' had kept to his course, he would have taken out the destroyer,
Dad's ship, seven or eight smaller vessels and quite possibly an aircraft
carrier. The Sangay was a very full ammunitions ship.
They were headed to Japan. The Japanese knew this. They had no intention of
surrendering.
The point of disagreement was whether or not the Japanese wanted to
surrender or were likely to surrender. You insisted that they were
not. I believe that I have established that they were. In the quotes
I was able to find in a short time it was the Russians who the
Japanese were contacting in an attempt to obtain more information.
That does not mean that they did not also contact the Swiss or any
other intermediary they thought would help, it is also totally
irrelevant to the point.
No it's not, because that was your very specific claim; that they WERE
frantically attempting to contact the Swiss between attacks and that we were
not listening. Since that claim is not accurate, what credibility does your
backtrack have?
No doubt if I spent a little more time on it
I could find documentation of an attempt by the Japanese to solicit
Swiss help, but it would not make your error concerning the Japanese
government's unwillingness to surrender any more documented than it
already is with the quotes I did supply.
I think that you should take the time, I truly do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
11 Jul 2005 02:53:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:42:01 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jks2d1937a6ma4plgidc7haoat5ei7ddao@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:25:31 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Interesting quotes. However, none of them address the specific issue that
you claimed, that after the first bomb, the Japanese were frantically
attempting to contact us through the Swiss in order to surrender, but we
weren't paying attention. That is simply incorrect.
I actually predicted to myself that you would answer the way you did,
but then I figured that I wasn't being fair; that you couldn't
possibly be that petty. Apparently my first reaction was correct,
which I think is very sad.
You made a specific claim. It's not petty to expect your response to back up
that specific claim, you know.
Pathetic.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
11 Jul 2005 08:07:38 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:5784d1dtel6phvos2sk55ek7jpt4u8o9fm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:42:01 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jks2d1937a6ma4plgidc7haoat5ei7ddao@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:25:31 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Interesting quotes. However, none of them address the specific issue
that
you claimed, that after the first bomb, the Japanese were frantically
attempting to contact us through the Swiss in order to surrender, but we
weren't paying attention. That is simply incorrect.
I actually predicted to myself that you would answer the way you did,
but then I figured that I wasn't being fair; that you couldn't
possibly be that petty. Apparently my first reaction was correct,
which I think is very sad.
You made a specific claim. It's not petty to expect your response to back
up
that specific claim, you know.
Pathetic.
And that pretty much says it all, yes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
10 Jul 2005 02:57:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:25:31 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:f5a2d1dso5pgdonhdp03s99e8tg64b37kr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:36:34 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
snip
Yes it does. Notice; the Japanese didn't surrender after the first one.
It
TOOK two.
Their was no time. They were trying to contact the Americans through
the Swiss. Nobody was responding. The second bomb was dropped very
soon after the second. Apparently the US was in a hurry to use it.
And your source for this bit of inaccuracy is, what, exactly?
Such a plesant tone you take! Here are a few quotes for you to
consider; should you need more just ask:
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters
in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an
atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number
of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary,
upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of
the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a
vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a
feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on
the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping
the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that
our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon
whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary
was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit
them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional
weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening.
My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an
ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not
taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying
women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction
to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan:
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender
unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was
appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor,
and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible
anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless
he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was
conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign.
Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Interesting quotes. However, none of them address the specific issue that
you claimed, that after the first bomb, the Japanese were frantically
attempting to contact us through the Swiss in order to surrender, but we
weren't paying attention. That is simply incorrect.
I have already answered the above. Here, however, is more:
This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica (1959 edition) has to say: After the fall of Okinawa [on June 21, 1945], [Japanese Prime Minister] Suzuki's main objective was to get Japan out of the war on the best possible terms, though that could not be announced to the general public... Unofficial peace feelers were transmitted through Switzerland and Sweden... Later the Japanese made a formal request to Russia to aid in bringing hostilities to an end.
Of course the relevant point was already made, but now that little
detail in in place.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
10 Jul 2005 07:43:29 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:29v2d113lh0f05cleelpejqui7a31lc0nj@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:25:31 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:f5a2d1dso5pgdonhdp03s99e8tg64b37kr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:36:34 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
snip
Yes it does. Notice; the Japanese didn't surrender after the first
one.
It
TOOK two.
Their was no time. They were trying to contact the Americans through
the Swiss. Nobody was responding. The second bomb was dropped very
soon after the second. Apparently the US was in a hurry to use it.
And your source for this bit of inaccuracy is, what, exactly?
Such a plesant tone you take! Here are a few quotes for you to
consider; should you need more just ask:
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters
in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an
atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a
number
of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the
Secretary,
upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and
of
the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a
vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a
feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first
on
the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping
the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that
our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon
whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to
save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The
Secretary
was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit
them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional
weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are
frightening.
My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an
ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not
taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying
women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's
reaction
to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan:
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender
unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was
appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor,
and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible
anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation
unless
he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was
conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign.
Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg.
512.
Interesting quotes. However, none of them address the specific issue that
you claimed, that after the first bomb, the Japanese were frantically
attempting to contact us through the Swiss in order to surrender, but we
weren't paying attention. That is simply incorrect.
I have already answered the above. Here, however, is more:
This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica (1959 edition) has to say: After
the fall of Okinawa [on June 21, 1945], [Japanese Prime Minister] Suzuki's
main objective was to get Japan out of the war on the best possible terms,
though that could not be announced to the general public... Unofficial
peace feelers were transmitted through Switzerland and Sweden... Later the
Japanese made a formal request to Russia to aid in bringing hostilities to
an end.
Of course the relevant point was already made, but now that little
detail in in place.
"later"? WHEN, exactly? Your claim was that it was a frantic call between
atomic bomb attacks and that we refused to listen. That is incorrect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
11 Jul 2005 02:53:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:43:29 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:29v2d113lh0f05cleelpejqui7a31lc0nj@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:25:31 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
snip
Interesting quotes. However, none of them address the specific issue that
you claimed, that after the first bomb, the Japanese were frantically
attempting to contact us through the Swiss in order to surrender, but we
weren't paying attention. That is simply incorrect.
I have already answered the above. Here, however, is more:
This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica (1959 edition) has to say: After
the fall of Okinawa [on June 21, 1945], [Japanese Prime Minister] Suzuki's
main objective was to get Japan out of the war on the best possible terms,
though that could not be announced to the general public... Unofficial
peace feelers were transmitted through Switzerland and Sweden... Later the
Japanese made a formal request to Russia to aid in bringing hostilities to
an end.
Of course the relevant point was already made, but now that little
detail in in place.
"later"? WHEN, exactly? Your claim was that it was a frantic call between
atomic bomb attacks and that we refused to listen. That is incorrect.
I have demonstrated that you were wrong about their unwillingness to
surrender without having the bomb dropped on them. I have shown that
leading political and military figures of the day thought the nuclear
attack completely unnecessary and immoral. Being wrong is not such a
terrible thing, but you are making yourself look foolish with your
pathetic attempt to avoid admitting it.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
11 Jul 2005 08:08:47 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:v784d1hhv0djq773nko9tbdvcq1mqep921@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:43:29 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:29v2d113lh0f05cleelpejqui7a31lc0nj@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:25:31 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
snip
Interesting quotes. However, none of them address the specific issue
that
you claimed, that after the first bomb, the Japanese were frantically
attempting to contact us through the Swiss in order to surrender, but we
weren't paying attention. That is simply incorrect.
I have already answered the above. Here, however, is more:
This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica (1959 edition) has to say:
After
the fall of Okinawa [on June 21, 1945], [Japanese Prime Minister]
Suzuki's
main objective was to get Japan out of the war on the best possible
terms,
though that could not be announced to the general public... Unofficial
peace feelers were transmitted through Switzerland and Sweden... Later
the
Japanese made a formal request to Russia to aid in bringing hostilities
to
an end.
Of course the relevant point was already made, but now that little
detail in in place.
"later"? WHEN, exactly? Your claim was that it was a frantic call
between
atomic bomb attacks and that we refused to listen. That is incorrect.
I have demonstrated that you were wrong about their unwillingness to
surrender without having the bomb dropped on them. I have shown that
leading political and military figures of the day thought the nuclear
attack completely unnecessary and immoral. Being wrong is not such a
terrible thing, but you are making yourself look foolish with your
pathetic attempt to avoid admitting it.
*I* am?
(shaking head in wonder at the way you keep attempting to turn this one
around)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
12 Jul 2005 04:33:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:08:47 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
snip
I have demonstrated that you were wrong about their unwillingness to
surrender without having the bomb dropped on them. I have shown that
leading political and military figures of the day thought the nuclear
attack completely unnecessary and immoral. Being wrong is not such a
terrible thing, but you are making yourself look foolish with your
pathetic attempt to avoid admitting it.
*I* am?
(shaking head in wonder at the way you keep attempting to turn this one
around)
You made a claim. I provided documentation showing that you were
wrong. Obviously you are not going to admit it, and there is no
purpose served in the continuation of this.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 11:15:29 AM |
|
|
So what, exactly - be precise - would you suggest we do?
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 11:40:55 AM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C5E2DD3C6Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
So what, exactly - be precise - would you suggest we do?
We live our lives. The 9/11 attacks we not a national tragedy for the US,
they were 3000 individual tragedies for the families of the dead. We are
too big, to strong to be taken out by such. But when we surrender our
liberties like the right to a trial, the right to be presented a warrant
before a search, the right free speech under the giuse of "defeating
terrorists" we bring on our own national tragedy.
The British know civil society can survive terrorism.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not
understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 11:48:21 AM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C62807F25B255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C5E2DD3C6Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
So what, exactly - be precise - would you suggest we do?
We live our lives.
We tried that before 9/11. 9/11 was the result.
But thanks for playing.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 11:58:49 AM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C63C0069B7taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
Enkidu the Atheist <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C62807F25B255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C5E2DD3C6Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
So what, exactly - be precise - would you suggest we do?
We live our lives.
We tried that before 9/11. 9/11 was the result.
But thanks for playing.
Yep. ***** happens. Shitty people cause ***** to happen. The solution is
not to become a shitty person yourself. 50,000 Americans are killed
every year by handguns, and we accept this as the price of one of our
freedoms. 3,000 Americans are killed in one incident, and we readily
give up the right to a trial, habius corpus, freedom of speech, and
subject ourselves to a national ID with implications worse than any NAZI
'identity papers'. And that's just here. Abroad, we invade a completely
unrelated country.
It seems to me that we are retaliating against ourselves. We could have
handled this without USA Patriot, using the civil courts and
international forums and agreements. Our leaders, however, took this
opportunity to grab as much power as they could, rather than address the
problem in a rational way.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
He wears his faith but as the fashion of his hat.
William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616),
"Much Ado about Nothing", Act 1 scene 1
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 12:06:57 PM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C658938332255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C63C0069B7taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
Enkidu the Atheist <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C62807F25B255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C5E2DD3C6Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
So what, exactly - be precise - would you suggest we do?
We live our lives.
We tried that before 9/11. 9/11 was the result.
But thanks for playing.
Yep. ***** happens. Shitty people cause ***** to happen. The solution
is not to become a shitty person yourself.
As I said above, we tried that. 9/11 was the result. Apparently, you are
happy with that.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: London bombs - bastards - what's the betting religion is involved. |
07 Jul 2005 12:42:36 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C66E77B15Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
Enkidu the Atheist <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C658938332255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C63C0069B7taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
Enkidu the Atheist <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C62807F25B255229@130.133.1.4:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
news:Xns968C5E2DD3C6Ctaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50:
So what, exactly - be precise - would you suggest we do?
We live our lives.
We tried that before 9/11. 9/11 was the result.
But thanks for playing.
Yep. ***** happens. Shitty people cause ***** to happen. The
solution is not to become a shitty person yourself.
As I said above, we tried that. 9/11 was the result. Apparently, you
are happy with that.
I see you continue to snip out what you cannot address. Coward.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just
the best we have. And to abandon it, with | | | | | | |
