"Deadrat" wrote in message
news:r3Phk.13248$LG4.2361@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote in
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote in
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote
>>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> Reality_Check© wrote:
>>>>>>>> "RSweeney" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> "David Hartung" wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gray Ghost wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And in so doing saved the lives of many more people by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forcing the Japanese out of the war.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Complte BULLSHIT apologia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So it would be ok for another nation to nuke a major U$
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> True. You've told us where the moral center isn't. Where *does* it lie?
Somewhere to the left of dropping NUCLEAR BOMBS on CIVILIANS ... no doubt.
>
> Just call it idle curiosity
Or obtuse hebetude.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Well, it's both pointless and thankless, but I'm just the one for that
> kinda thing.
>
>>
>>> "Proofread" is not hyphenated.
>>
>> That'd be "Prof." read ...
>>
>> So should we nuke 100,000+ civilians over a typo or not ?
>
> I dunno. I'm looking to you for moral guidance on this one.
>
> 100,000+ seems high to me, but I'm no expert.
HMCWJN ?
.
How many civilians would Jesus nuke?
|