The governmant is so insidious. They tax EVERTHING

hiroshima facts wrote:
> Tony P. > wrote in message >. ..
>
>>As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, evidence is now coming out that the prime
>>motivation was to scare the USSR more than force the Japanese surrender.
>
>
> There is no evidence coming out that says anything at all like that.
> All evidence shows that the point of the bombs was to force Japan to
> accept Potsdam.

I agree. Use of the bombs was to save American lives!


>>Most people now believe that Japan was prepared to surrender even before
>>the Hiroshima device was dropped.

That is Total bull****: the Japanese were prepared to fight to the
death - their leaders saw that that with the a-bomb their
determination would lead to extermination.

There is no such data on what people "now belive."- RM


> It is a shame that Japan was not prepared to surrender on our terms.
>
> The way out for them was to accept Potsdam. Trying to surrender on
> unacceptable terms was a non-starter, and a mistake that got them
> nuked twice.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Nagasaki was just a bonus and a test of a slightly different device.
>
>
> Nagasaki was an attempt to force Japan to accept Potsdam.

Since this thread lost its momentum (read: what is the subject line vs.
actual content), and it does NOT contribute to the general knowledge of this
news group, kindly take this off-line.

"Rick Merrill" > wrote in message
news:Nzk3c.90725$PR3.1395286@attbi_s03...
> hiroshima facts wrote:
> > Tony P. > wrote in message
>. ..
> >
Blah, blah, blah

Napalm Heart wrote:

> demonstrates that the numbers of dead — frequently cited in excess of
> 100,000 — were greatly exaggerated, for propaganda purposes, by Josef
> Goebbels (Taylor estimates the actual death toll at between 25,000 and
> 40,000)

My bad, then. 40,000. Still a huge number.

DTJ wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:53:03 -0500, Greg Houston >
> wrote:
>
>>Greg Houston wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The USA announced that it was going into Afghanistan on September 19, 2001. This
>>>was a mere eight (8) days after the worst terrorist attack in history.
>>
>>Correction: That should say "in US history."
>
> Um, refresh my memory. What terrorist attack in world history was
> worse?

You have to define terrorist attack, then.

Blowing entire cities en-masse apart reguardless of the civilians
living in them isn't exactly kosher. Especially when it is done
to force them to unconditionally surrender and/or demoralize them.

DTJ wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 03:43:34 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Note - the worst terrorist attack in history goes to us if you count
>>bombing innocent civilians in a non-military target purely for
>>psychological damage as such an act. Most rational people would agree
>>that fits the definition of a terror(ist) act.
>>
>>No - it wasn't Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but Dresden. Done purely to
>
>
> Oh my - once upon a time, many generations ago, when a democrat was in
> charge, the US did something slightly bad, but far ****ing worse than
> our enemies.

My point is that 9/11 isn't close to what we have done ourselves
for various reasons. Only the perspective is different.

Afterall, we had no problem doing the same sort of things to
win our freedom. But that's all good.

The problem is - we've come full circle and are rapidly turning
into the very thing we rebelled against over 200 years ago.

Tony P. wrote:

> Our foreign policy since WW II has been severely damaged.
>
> The Dresden fire bombing was to let Hitler and his command structure
> know that we weren't screwing around.
>
> As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, evidence is now coming out that the prime
> motivation was to scare the USSR more than force the Japanese surrender.
> Most people now believe that Japan was prepared to surrender even before
> the Hiroshima device was dropped. Nagasaki was just a bonus and a test
> of a slightly different device.

And all three are prime examples of terrorist attacks considering
our standing orders at the time to not target civilians. At least
that's what we told the soldiers.

Beg to differ. See response to another, similar post. War had to be brought
to an end.

Looking for other motives is easy for armchair theorists sitting in comfort
in the west, 11 Sep 01 notwithstanding.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> And all three are prime examples of terrorist attacks considering
> our standing orders at the time to not target civilians. At least
> that's what we told the soldiers.
>

Unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan were excellent aims. Results
achieved.

Have you forgotten (or did you not know) about Japan's horrendous war crimes
all over Asia? That Japan and Japanese are still disliked, even hated, in
many parts of Asia, and in China and Korea in particular?

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> DTJ wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:53:03 -0500, Greg Houston >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Greg Houston wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The USA announced that it was going into Afghanistan on September 19,
2001. This
> >>>was a mere eight (8) days after the worst terrorist attack in history.
> >>
> >>Correction: That should say "in US history."
> >
> > Um, refresh my memory. What terrorist attack in world history was
> > worse?
>
> You have to define terrorist attack, then.
>
> Blowing entire cities en-masse apart reguardless of the civilians
> living in them isn't exactly kosher. Especially when it is done
> to force them to unconditionally surrender and/or demoralize them.
>

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>We simply no longer had
>>time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus.
>
>
> Yeah, 'cause if we'd waited any longer, Saddam would've used those weapons
> of mass distraction he didn't have...right? Pffft.

I have no doubt he had weapons. Did he have as many as we thought?
Probably not. Was he close on nukes? Probably not. Did he have
chemical weapons? I'm 100% sure of it as he's used them before. Did he
have biological weapons? Who knows. I suspect that the weapons are now
residing in Syria or still buried and yet to be found.


Matt

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Louis Hom wrote:
>
>
>>>I agree had that been possible in a reasonable time frame.
>>>Unfortunately, most governments in place today are too much like France
>>>and don't have the spine to take on terrorists. We simply no longer
>>>had time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus.
>>
>> But it seems like we didn't have any such problem waiting to
>>organize against the threat in Afghanistan.
>
>
> And hey, we're still waiting -- probably fornever -- to invade China. It
> is, after all, an unfree country run by brutal dictators, possessing
> weapons of mass destruction. They conduct economic terrorism against the
> US every day, and have been doing so for the last 15 years. They've even
> got lots of oil. Oh wait, that's right, we haven't attacked them because
> we'd lose, and because the MBAs of America have a permanent hard-on for
> China.

Are you having trouble spelling, DS? I've not come across "fornever" in
my dictionary.


Matt