Deadrat wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote in
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote
>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> Reality_Check© wrote:
>>>>>> "RSweeney" wrote in message
>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> "David Hartung" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Gray Ghost wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> And in so doing saved the lives of many more people by
>>>>>>>>>>> forcing the Japanese out of the war.
>>>>>>>>>> Complte BULLSHIT apologia.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So it would be ok for another nation to nuke a major U$ city,
>>>>>>>>>> if they believed it would "save more lives" from their point
>>>>>>>>>> of view, eh numbnuts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your absence of morality is repugnant. May your family be the
>>>>>>>>>> first to suffer from it.
>>>>>>>>> Truman, using the information he had available at the time,
>>>>>>>>> determined that the use of nuclear weapons would bring the War
>>>>>>>>> to an end without the necessity of invading the Japanese Home
>>>>>>>>> Islands.
>>>>>>>> So it was done for expedience, easier for the U$$A.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given the record of the war, it is likely that doing so not
>>>>>>>>> only saved thousands of American lives, but also Japanese
>>>>>>>>> lives. Utterly bullshit speculation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is this a bad thing?
>>>>>>>> If deliberately dropping NUCLEAR BOMBS upon civilian population
>>>>>>>> centers -- TWICE --
>>>>>>>> killing 100,000+ innocent civilians, women and children in the
>>>>>>>> process isn't a "bad thing"
>>>>>>>> in your world, then you really should be in the dock ahead of
>>>>>>>> Karadzic, you repugnant
>>>>>>>> piece of crap.
>>>>>>> Better we killed millions of Japanese men women and children
>>>>>>> with M1's and naval bombardment than killed a few tens of
>>>>>>> thousands with two nukes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only someone as depraved and perverted of spirit as you would
>>>>>> do either.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would have been thre proper solution then?
>>>>
>>>> One thing is for certain, it would NOT have entailed dropping
>>>> NUCLEAR BOMBS on CIVILIAN population centers ... TWICE!
>>>
>>> It would have?
>>
>> I just don't know how I'd get by without you spell checking and
>> proof reading every one of my posts --
>
> I don't know how you get by at all. And it's "without your*r* spell
> checking and proof reading every one of my posts...."
>>
>> Corrected: One thing is for certain, it would NOT have entailed
>> dropping NUCLEAR BOMBS on CIVILIAN population centers ... TWICE!
>
> What would it have entailed? Your fans -- and you know I'm one --
> want to know.
Utterly irrelevant to the immorality of nuking civilian population centers.
>
>>> Then what's all the whining about? You're in violent agreement with
>>> Truman.
>>
>> Perhaps Hesitant Harry simply made a typo, and not having a Vice
>> President to proof-read his directives ... BOOOM!
>
> Maybe you can get Dan Quayle to help *you*
But you're doing such a glorious job.
> "Proofread" is not
> hyphenated.
That'd be "Prof." read ...
So should we nuke 100,000+ civilians over a typo or not ?
|