"_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote in news:6epijrF88ongU1
@mid.individual.net:
> 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.
Could toy explain the moral difference between killing 100,000 plus civilians
through bombing with incendiaries and starting a firestorm versus using a
single bomb to do so?
Frank |