|
Sports » rec.sport.football.college » Lies, damned lies...
| Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #726929 ] |
So, 04 Dezember 2005 20:51 |
|
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:48:32 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> The comparison made was the number of troops killed in Iraq with the
>> number of people killed in CA. Not a valid comparison unless the
>> population figure is based the same.
>
>That's why you use rates. The homicide rate in CA is about 7 per 100k
>population. The rate for US soldiers in Iraq is about 600 per 100k. Do you
>see?
The rates are useless as you are trying to compare apples with
oranges.
The homicide rate in CA can only be compared with the homicide rate in
Iraq.
The death rate amoung soldiers in action will always be high - that is
part of what they get paid for. They know the risks when they join up
after all.
Now, a comparison between the civilian death rate in Iraq at the
moment, and the death rate under Saddam, would be a good figure to
look at.
--
Bob.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #726942 ] |
So, 04 Dezember 2005 21:23 |
|
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005, eerierodent [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Thanks, Katt, that was a very interesting information I had not come
> across before.
It also shows (once more) that politicians see science as a tool of
convenience.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #726981 ] |
So, 04 Dezember 2005 22:34 |
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3vgp2gF1606onU2 [at] individual.net...
> Geoff wrote:
>> That's why you use rates. The homicide rate in CA is about 7 per 100k
>> population. The rate for US soldiers in Iraq is about 600 per 100k. Do
>> you
>> see?
>
> Do I detect a sampling bias. To compare like with like you should look
> at the death rate of our troops in Iraq in comparison with death rates
> in the United States. We are loosing more both by ratio and absolute
> numbers to traffic accidents than to combat deaths in Iraq.
I was merely reconciling the statistics bandied about in the article cited
by the OP. I don't care if there are more deaths attributed to smoking. It's
not the point.
The article stated that the murder rate in CA was 265% higher than for
soldiers in Iraq which is demonstrably false.
|
|
|
| Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #726987 ] |
So, 04 Dezember 2005 22:37 |
|
"Ye Old One" <usenet [at] mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:kuh6p19kiv5emfqqr45kupkhrim2dmspia [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:48:32 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>> The comparison made was the number of troops killed in Iraq with the
>>> number of people killed in CA. Not a valid comparison unless the
>>> population figure is based the same.
>>
>>That's why you use rates. The homicide rate in CA is about 7 per 100k
>>population. The rate for US soldiers in Iraq is about 600 per 100k. Do you
>>see?
>
>
> The rates are useless as you are trying to compare apples with
> oranges.
>
> The homicide rate in CA can only be compared with the homicide rate in
> Iraq.
>
> The death rate amoung soldiers in action will always be high - that is
> part of what they get paid for. They know the risks when they join up
> after all.
>
> Now, a comparison between the civilian death rate in Iraq at the
> moment, and the death rate under Saddam, would be a good figure to
> look at.
Jeepers. I am merely reconciling the statistics cited in the article. Do you
agree that the murder rate in CA is 265% higher than the fatality rate of
soldiers in Iraq based on the statistics cited? I don't and that's the whole
point. The author was blatantly twisting statistics to suit his/her
political viewpoint. It was blatant and indefensible.
|
|
|
| Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #727029 ] |
So, 04 Dezember 2005 23:36 |
|
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 16:37:49 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>"Ye Old One" <usenet [at] mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:kuh6p19kiv5emfqqr45kupkhrim2dmspia [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:48:32 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>> The comparison made was the number of troops killed in Iraq with the
>>>> number of people killed in CA. Not a valid comparison unless the
>>>> population figure is based the same.
>>>
>>>That's why you use rates. The homicide rate in CA is about 7 per 100k
>>>population. The rate for US soldiers in Iraq is about 600 per 100k. Do you
>>>see?
>>
>>
>> The rates are useless as you are trying to compare apples with
>> oranges.
>>
>> The homicide rate in CA can only be compared with the homicide rate in
>> Iraq.
>>
>> The death rate amoung soldiers in action will always be high - that is
>> part of what they get paid for. They know the risks when they join up
>> after all.
>>
>> Now, a comparison between the civilian death rate in Iraq at the
>> moment, and the death rate under Saddam, would be a good figure to
>> look at.
>
>Jeepers. I am merely reconciling the statistics cited in the article. Do you
>agree that the murder rate in CA is 265% higher than the fatality rate of
>soldiers in Iraq based on the statistics cited? I don't and that's the whole
>point. The author was blatantly twisting statistics to suit his/her
>political viewpoint. It was blatant and indefensible.
>
Of course the statistics are twisted - they are comparing like with
like.
--
Bob.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #727096 ] |
Mo, 05 Dezember 2005 00:50 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college eerierodent [at] yahoo.com sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> And your background in social science /statistics is...???
Dr. Hennig is an MD, which both scares me and supports my
prejudices against MDs as scientists.
However, I don't think your appeal to authority is
particularly effective.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #727199 ] |
Mo, 05 Dezember 2005 02:48 |
|
"Ye Old One" <usenet [at] mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:dqr6p11ipd7m46umdbmncj5visoqf0aim9 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 16:37:49 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>"Ye Old One" <usenet [at] mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>>news:kuh6p19kiv5emfqqr45kupkhrim2dmspia [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:48:32 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The comparison made was the number of troops killed in Iraq with the
>>>>> number of people killed in CA. Not a valid comparison unless the
>>>>> population figure is based the same.
>>>>
>>>>That's why you use rates. The homicide rate in CA is about 7 per 100k
>>>>population. The rate for US soldiers in Iraq is about 600 per 100k. Do
>>>>you
>>>>see?
>>>
>>>
>>> The rates are useless as you are trying to compare apples with
>>> oranges.
>>>
>>> The homicide rate in CA can only be compared with the homicide rate in
>>> Iraq.
>>>
>>> The death rate amoung soldiers in action will always be high - that is
>>> part of what they get paid for. They know the risks when they join up
>>> after all.
>>>
>>> Now, a comparison between the civilian death rate in Iraq at the
>>> moment, and the death rate under Saddam, would be a good figure to
>>> look at.
>>
>>Jeepers. I am merely reconciling the statistics cited in the article. Do
>>you
>>agree that the murder rate in CA is 265% higher than the fatality rate of
>>soldiers in Iraq based on the statistics cited? I don't and that's the
>>whole
>>point. The author was blatantly twisting statistics to suit his/her
>>political viewpoint. It was blatant and indefensible.
>>
> Of course the statistics are twisted - they are comparing like with
> like.
Wrong. They were using absolute numbers. They said that 2500 homicides in CA
was worse than 900 US fatalities in Iraq when the base populations are
orders of magnitude different.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732495 ] |
Mo, 05 Dezember 2005 19:34 |
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
> "rthearle [at] hotmail.com" <rthearle [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Matthew Hennig wrote:
> >> That Lancet study is poorly done. The actual range of estimated civilian
> >> deaths was something on the order of about 10,000-100,000.
> >
> >Bullshit.
> >
> >The actual range was 8,000 - 194,000.
> > [snip] ....
> >> That is a
> >> wide range that lends NO credence to the 100,000 number being selected
> >> over the 10,000 number.
> >
> >The actual range, however, does.
> >
> No, it does not. That range is so large it is almost useless. Choosing
> *any* one number in such a large range is unjustified. When the error
> bar is almost as large as the mean, no valid conclusions are really
> possible.
Probably someone, somewhere on this thread has already stated it, but
there appears to be a misunderstanding of how confidence intervals work
in statistics. The 95% CI of this range means that (assuming a normal
distribution) only a 2.5% chance the actual number of deaths is outside
the CI interval in either direction. In fact, it also means that there
is less than 10% chance the actual number of deaths is *less* than
45,000 or greater than 167,000. And THIS means, of course, that there
is 90% chance the actual number of Iraqi deaths due to the war is
between 45 and 167k.
The methods used in the paper are widely accepted polling methods. If
posters to this thread have a problem with the methods used then they
must have similar problems with accepted polling techniques. I'd like
to see a cogent critique.
It is notable that while the authors acknowledge the limitations of
their findings, no credible alternative findings have been published.
For whatever that is worth.
>
> [Please do not take this as indicating support for the war in Iraq].
>
> --
> The peace of God be with you.
>
> Stanley Friesen
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732506 ] |
Mo, 05 Dezember 2005 19:50 |
|
"J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:43930591.5973479 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net...
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:05:06 -0800, Stanley Friesen
> <sarima [at] friesen.net> wrote:
>
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>
>>>On 2 Dec 2005 21:14:48 -0800, "Frank Sullivan"
>>><gimbal.locked [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ok. How many Iraqi innocents died?
>>>>
>>>Do we know that any did?
>>
>>Oh, I think we can be sure of that. No war fought anywhere that people
>>actually live has failed to kill some innocents. WWII killed far more
>>innocents than the *total* deaths on *both* sides in this little brush
>>war.
>>
>>--
>>The peace of God be with you.
>>
>>Stanley Friesen
>
> That's pretty much the point. War can't be conducted without suffering
> by innocents. But without war innocents suffer also as in Hitler's
> slaughter of the Jews and the Japanese rape of parts of Asia and
> bombing of Pearl.
>
> If we had not dropped the bombs on Japan how many more US innocents
> might have died?
Where exactly did any American innocents die in WWII?
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732518 ] |
Mo, 05 Dezember 2005 20:13 |
|
"Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:eoydnd6jIbRkFgnenZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d [at] comcast.com:
>> If we had not dropped the bombs on Japan how many more US innocents
>> might have died?
>
> Where exactly did any American innocents die in WWII?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsie_Mitchell
--
"I wish people who had trouble communicating would just shut up."
-- Tom Lehrer
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jayfurr/
|
|
|
| Re: Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732526 ] |
Mo, 05 Dezember 2005 20:26 |
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:50:31 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:43930591.5973479 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:05:06 -0800, Stanley Friesen
>> <sarima [at] friesen.net> wrote:
>>
>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2 Dec 2005 21:14:48 -0800, "Frank Sullivan"
>>>><gimbal.locked [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ok. How many Iraqi innocents died?
>>>>>
>>>>Do we know that any did?
>>>
>>>Oh, I think we can be sure of that. No war fought anywhere that people
>>>actually live has failed to kill some innocents. WWII killed far more
>>>innocents than the *total* deaths on *both* sides in this little brush
>>>war.
>>>
>>>--
>>>The peace of God be with you.
>>>
>>>Stanley Friesen
>>
>> That's pretty much the point. War can't be conducted without suffering
>> by innocents. But without war innocents suffer also as in Hitler's
>> slaughter of the Jews and the Japanese rape of parts of Asia and
>> bombing of Pearl.
>>
>> If we had not dropped the bombs on Japan how many more US innocents
>> might have died?
>
>Where exactly did any American innocents die in WWII?
>
The USA lost 9,512 Merchant Marines during the war, another 11,000+
civilians were lost in other ways - 69 of them at Pearl Harbour.
--
Bob.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732567 ] |
Mo, 05 Dezember 2005 21:37 |
|
In talk.origins Ye Old One <usenet [at] mcsuk.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:50:31 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>news:43930591.5973479 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net...
>>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:05:06 -0800, Stanley Friesen
>>> <sarima [at] friesen.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2 Dec 2005 21:14:48 -0800, "Frank Sullivan"
>>>>><gimbal.locked [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ok. How many Iraqi innocents died?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Do we know that any did?
>>>>
>>>>Oh, I think we can be sure of that. No war fought anywhere that people
>>>>actually live has failed to kill some innocents. WWII killed far more
>>>>innocents than the *total* deaths on *both* sides in this little brush
>>>>war.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>The peace of God be with you.
>>>>
>>>>Stanley Friesen
>>>
>>> That's pretty much the point. War can't be conducted without suffering
>>> by innocents. But without war innocents suffer also as in Hitler's
>>> slaughter of the Jews and the Japanese rape of parts of Asia and
>>> bombing of Pearl.
>>>
>>> If we had not dropped the bombs on Japan how many more US innocents
>>> might have died?
>>
>>Where exactly did any American innocents die in WWII?
>>
>The USA lost 9,512 Merchant Marines during the war, another 11,000+
>civilians were lost in other ways - 69 of them at Pearl Harbour.
You mean that the act of putting on a uniform makes you
lose your innocence?
I know you don't think that way, but "Geoff" seems to do so.
---- Paul J. Gans
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732588 ] |
Mo, 05 Dezember 2005 22:06 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Paul J Gans <gans [at] panix.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> You mean that the act of putting on a uniform makes you
> lose your innocence?
I think you're generally taking your uniform off when you
lose your innocence.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732661 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 00:21 |
|
"Ye Old One" <usenet [at] mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:km49p19jv2f1p524oiednhkm8nsgtp9gco [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:50:31 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>news:43930591.5973479 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net...
>>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:05:06 -0800, Stanley Friesen
>>> <sarima [at] friesen.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2 Dec 2005 21:14:48 -0800, "Frank Sullivan"
>>>>><gimbal.locked [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ok. How many Iraqi innocents died?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Do we know that any did?
>>>>
>>>>Oh, I think we can be sure of that. No war fought anywhere that people
>>>>actually live has failed to kill some innocents. WWII killed far more
>>>>innocents than the *total* deaths on *both* sides in this little brush
>>>>war.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>The peace of God be with you.
>>>>
>>>>Stanley Friesen
>>>
>>> That's pretty much the point. War can't be conducted without suffering
>>> by innocents. But without war innocents suffer also as in Hitler's
>>> slaughter of the Jews and the Japanese rape of parts of Asia and
>>> bombing of Pearl.
>>>
>>> If we had not dropped the bombs on Japan how many more US innocents
>>> might have died?
>>
>>Where exactly did any American innocents die in WWII?
>>
> The USA lost 9,512 Merchant Marines during the war, another 11,000+
> civilians were lost in other ways - 69 of them at Pearl Harbour.
OK...I'm not saying (as another poster did) that by the act of putting a
uniform on one loses ones innocence. I think we might agree that by
innocents, we mean noncombatants. I know MM's are noncombatants, but they
were part of the US's logistical arm for the war so calling them innocents
might be a stretch.
I am surprised that 11k civilians were killed. Where did that happen? They
had to be overseas US nationals, right?
And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi. I'm sure Truman did too...it must
have been an awful decision to make.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732826 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 03:34 |
|
"Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:43930591.5973479 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:05:06 -0800, Stanley Friesen
>> <sarima [at] friesen.net> wrote:
>>
>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2 Dec 2005 21:14:48 -0800, "Frank Sullivan"
>>>><gimbal.locked [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ok. How many Iraqi innocents died?
>>>>>
>>>>Do we know that any did?
>>>
>>>Oh, I think we can be sure of that. No war fought anywhere that people
>>>actually live has failed to kill some innocents. WWII killed far more
>>>innocents than the *total* deaths on *both* sides in this little brush
>>>war.
>>>
>>>--
>>>The peace of God be with you.
>>>
>>>Stanley Friesen
>>
>> That's pretty much the point. War can't be conducted without suffering
>> by innocents. But without war innocents suffer also as in Hitler's
>> slaughter of the Jews and the Japanese rape of parts of Asia and
>> bombing of Pearl.
>>
>> If we had not dropped the bombs on Japan how many more US innocents
>> might have died?
>
>Where exactly did any American innocents die in WWII?
>
Where did I say *American*?
However, I suspect there were travelers caught in Axis countries or
early Axis conquests who were indeed killed. Certainly the situation
portrayed in _Casablanca_ is not that far off from being possible.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732833 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 03:37 |
|
Paul J Gans <gans [at] panix.com> wrote:
>You mean that the act of putting on a uniform makes you
>lose your innocence?
Well, in the war-related sense that is relevant here, yes. Taking up
arms in wartime *does* make one a legitimate target.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732834 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 03:39 |
|
"Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
>result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
>
>Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
>problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
>Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi.
Indeed, this is, IMO, the main difference between soldiers and
terrorists.
> I'm sure Truman did too...it must
>have been an awful decision to make.
>
It was. They were also, *technically*, attacks on manufacturing
facilities. I do not know if he made the right decision, but the
situation was dire, no matter what choice he made.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732835 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 03:42 |
|
"Noone Inparticular" <unreve89 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>> "rthearle [at] hotmail.com" <rthearle [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> No, it does not. That range is so large it is almost useless. Choosing
>> *any* one number in such a large range is unjustified. When the error
>> bar is almost as large as the mean, no valid conclusions are really
>> possible.
>
>Probably someone, somewhere on this thread has already stated it, but
>there appears to be a misunderstanding of how confidence intervals work
>in statistics. The 95% CI of this range means that (assuming a normal
>distribution) only a 2.5% chance the actual number of deaths is outside
>the CI interval in either direction. In fact, it also means that there
>is less than 10% chance the actual number of deaths is *less* than
>45,000 or greater than 167,000. And THIS means, of course, that there
>is 90% chance the actual number of Iraqi deaths due to the war is
>between 45 and 167k.
This assumes a Normal Distribution. Probably reasonable for a summed
binomial, but ought to be formally justified.
>
>The methods used in the paper are widely accepted polling methods. If
>posters to this thread have a problem with the methods used then they
>must have similar problems with accepted polling techniques. I'd like
>to see a cogent critique.
Well, I suspect that may be why polls so often mispredict the outcome of
an election.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732838 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 03:47 |
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:21:52 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
>"Ye Old One" <usenet [at] mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:km49p19jv2f1p524oiednhkm8nsgtp9gco [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:50:31 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>>news:43930591.5973479 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net...
>>>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:05:06 -0800, Stanley Friesen
>>>> <sarima [at] friesen.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 2 Dec 2005 21:14:48 -0800, "Frank Sullivan"
>>>>>><gimbal.locked [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ok. How many Iraqi innocents died?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do we know that any did?
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, I think we can be sure of that. No war fought anywhere that people
>>>>>actually live has failed to kill some innocents. WWII killed far more
>>>>>innocents than the *total* deaths on *both* sides in this little brush
>>>>>war.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>The peace of God be with you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stanley Friesen
>>>>
>>>> That's pretty much the point. War can't be conducted without suffering
>>>> by innocents. But without war innocents suffer also as in Hitler's
>>>> slaughter of the Jews and the Japanese rape of parts of Asia and
>>>> bombing of Pearl.
>>>>
>>>> If we had not dropped the bombs on Japan how many more US innocents
>>>> might have died?
>>>
>>>Where exactly did any American innocents die in WWII?
>>>
>> The USA lost 9,512 Merchant Marines during the war, another 11,000+
>> civilians were lost in other ways - 69 of them at Pearl Harbour.
>
>OK...I'm not saying (as another poster did) that by the act of putting a
>uniform on one loses ones innocence. I think we might agree that by
>innocents, we mean noncombatants. I know MM's are noncombatants, but they
>were part of the US's logistical arm for the war so calling them innocents
>might be a stretch.
>
>I am surprised that 11k civilians were killed. Where did that happen? They
>had to be overseas US nationals, right?
>
>And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
>result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
Since the Japs surrendered I'd say just exactly the right number.
>Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
>problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
>Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi. I'm sure Truman did too...it must
>have been an awful decision to make.
I say again the end was worth the means, I was over there in 1945 and
you probably were not.
It was a logical decision. I don't think "awful" belongs in that
sentence.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732839 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 03:41 |
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:50:31 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote:
>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:43930591.5973479 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:05:06 -0800, Stanley Friesen
>> <sarima [at] friesen.net> wrote:
>>
>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2 Dec 2005 21:14:48 -0800, "Frank Sullivan"
>>>><gimbal.locked [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ok. How many Iraqi innocents died?
>>>>>
>>>>Do we know that any did?
>>>
>>>Oh, I think we can be sure of that. No war fought anywhere that people
>>>actually live has failed to kill some innocents. WWII killed far more
>>>innocents than the *total* deaths on *both* sides in this little brush
>>>war.
>>>
>>>--
>>>The peace of God be with you.
>>>
>>>Stanley Friesen
>>
>> That's pretty much the point. War can't be conducted without suffering
>> by innocents. But without war innocents suffer also as in Hitler's
>> slaughter of the Jews and the Japanese rape of parts of Asia and
>> bombing of Pearl.
>>
>> If we had not dropped the bombs on Japan how many more US innocents
>> might have died?
>
>Where exactly did any American innocents die in WWII?
Let's start with Pearl Harbor. Let's continue with American civilians
in Manilla. Let's add American missionaries in China. And lots of
draftees who had no choice but to follow orders or be shot.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732846 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 03:57 |
|
Geoff wrote in talk.origins
> "J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:43930591.5973479 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:05:06 -0800, Stanley Friesen
>> <sarima [at] friesen.net> wrote:
>>
>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2 Dec 2005 21:14:48 -0800, "Frank Sullivan"
>>>><gimbal.locked [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ok. How many Iraqi innocents died?
>>>>>
>>>>Do we know that any did?
>>>
>>>Oh, I think we can be sure of that. No war fought anywhere that people
>>>actually live has failed to kill some innocents. WWII killed far more
>>>innocents than the *total* deaths on *both* sides in this little brush
>>>war.
>>>
>>>--
>>>The peace of God be with you.
>>>
>>>Stanley Friesen
>>
>> That's pretty much the point. War can't be conducted without suffering
>> by innocents. But without war innocents suffer also as in Hitler's
>> slaughter of the Jews and the Japanese rape of parts of Asia and
>> bombing of Pearl.
>>
>> If we had not dropped the bombs on Japan how many more US innocents
>> might have died?
>
> Where exactly did any American innocents die in WWII?
American civilians in Asia at the start of the war were incarcerated
by the Japanese, many of whom died while captive, comes to mind.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dickcr [at] comcast.net
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #732953 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 05:24 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Stanley Friesen <sarima [at] friesen.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
>>result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
>>
>>Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
>>problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
>>Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi.
> Indeed, this is, IMO, the main difference between soldiers and
> terrorists.
>> I'm sure Truman did too...it must
>>have been an awful decision to make.
>>
> It was. They were also, *technically*, attacks on manufacturing
> facilities. I do not know if he made the right decision, but the
> situation was dire, no matter what choice he made.
No, the firebombings were explicitly at civilian targets, albeit
civilians working in the war industry. I have read memos where
the British measured success by the number of workers' homes
destroyed...actually, that may have been conventional bombings, not
firebombings.
I have also read that the Americans were uncomfortable with that
strategy in Europe.
I haven't read much about the firebombings of Japan, except for
the horrible immediate effects of it.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733028 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 06:21 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
>>result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
>>Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
>>problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
>>Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi. I'm sure Truman did too...it must
>>have been an awful decision to make.
[snip]
> It was a logical decision. I don't think "awful" belongs in that
> sentence.
If you don't think that the firebombing was awful, you aren't
human. If you don't think the decision was awful, you aren't
human.
Truman was a practical man, with experience of war. But he
was human.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733215 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 16:39 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> In rec.sport.football.college Stanley Friesen <sarima [at] friesen.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> > "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
> >>result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
> >>
> >>Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
> >>problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
> >>Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi.
>
> > Indeed, this is, IMO, the main difference between soldiers and
> > terrorists.
>
> >> I'm sure Truman did too...it must
> >>have been an awful decision to make.
> >>
> > It was. They were also, *technically*, attacks on manufacturing
> > facilities. I do not know if he made the right decision, but the
> > situation was dire, no matter what choice he made.
>
> No, the firebombings were explicitly at civilian targets, albeit
> civilians working in the war industry. I have read memos where
> the British measured success by the number of workers' homes
> destroyed...actually, that may have been conventional bombings, not
> firebombings.
The firestorms in Dreden, Hamburg and other German cities (not to
mention Tokyo) were produced by conventional bombs. Just drop loads and
loads of small incendiary bombs on a city and once the heat of all
those little fires becomes great enough you create a firestorm.
I have a friend who, at 14 years of age, witnessed the bombing of
Dresden. He tells me that when he went into the ruins of the city two
months after the fires had died out, the brickwork was in places still
too hot to touch.
>
> I have also read that the Americans were uncomfortable with that
> strategy in Europe.
They were perfectly comfortable with it in Japan. More people were
killed in Tokyo than in Hiroshima.
RF
>
> I haven't read much about the firebombings of Japan, except for
> the horrible immediate effects of it.
>
> rich
>
> --
> -to reply, it's hot not warm
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
> / The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733249 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 17:50 |
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:21:21 -0000, rich hammett
<bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>>And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
>>>result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
>
>>>Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
>>>problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
>>>Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi. I'm sure Truman did too...it must
>>>have been an awful decision to make.
>
>[snip]
>
>> It was a logical decision. I don't think "awful" belongs in that
>> sentence.
>
>If you don't think that the firebombing was awful, you aren't
>human. If you don't think the decision was awful, you aren't
>human.
>
>Truman was a practical man, with experience of war. But he
>was human.
>
>rich
There were two options - firebombing or not. Firebombing shortened the
war - as did the A-bombs. Emotion has no part in the decision. If
there was later regret it was that it had to be done to achieve a
quick end. At the time most of this country wanted to annihilate the
Japs and many WWII vets still can't tolerate them.
You are a victim of history books and bleeding hearts - most of whom
were never involved.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733272 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 18:24 |
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
> "Noone Inparticular" <unreve89 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Stanley Friesen wrote:
> >> "rthearle [at] hotmail.com" <rthearle [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> No, it does not. That range is so large it is almost useless. Choosing
> >> *any* one number in such a large range is unjustified. When the error
> >> bar is almost as large as the mean, no valid conclusions are really
> >> possible.
> >
> >Probably someone, somewhere on this thread has already stated it, but
> >there appears to be a misunderstanding of how confidence intervals work
> >in statistics. The 95% CI of this range means that (assuming a normal
> >distribution) only a 2.5% chance the actual number of deaths is outside
> >the CI interval in either direction. In fact, it also means that there
> >is less than 10% chance the actual number of deaths is *less* than
> >45,000 or greater than 167,000. And THIS means, of course, that there
> >is 90% chance the actual number of Iraqi deaths due to the war is
> >between 45 and 167k.
>
> This assumes a Normal Distribution. Probably reasonable for a summed
> binomial, but ought to be formally justified.
Good point. The nature of violence is such that it is not randomly
distributed through time or space. So I'm not sure what distribution
you're talking about, except perhaps the cause of death. This, again,
is unlikely to have a normal curve. I'll check the paper and see.
> >
> >The methods used in the paper are widely accepted polling methods. If
> >posters to this thread have a problem with the methods used then they
> >must have similar problems with accepted polling techniques. I'd like
> >to see a cogent critique.
>
> Well, I suspect that may be why polls so often mispredict the outcome of
> an election.
Actually this is a common myth. Polls on political campaigns actually
have a very good success rate (it's why they are still used). There are
notable exceptions, but overall polling, if done right, has been shown
repeatedly to be highly useful.
In any event, the methods used in the paper are more akin to the kind
of polling that epidemiologists use. If you find their techniques
questionable, I suggest you ignore whatever the CDC says as they use
the very same techniques.
>
> --
> The peace of God be with you.
>
> Stanley Friesen
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733388 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 21:46 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:21:21 -0000, rich hammett
> <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
>>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>>>And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
>>>>result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
>>
>>>>Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
>>>>problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
>>>>Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi. I'm sure Truman did too...it must
>>>>have been an awful decision to make.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> It was a logical decision. I don't think "awful" belongs in that
>>> sentence.
>>
>>If you don't think that the firebombing was awful, you aren't
>>human. If you don't think the decision was awful, you aren't
>>human.
>>
>>Truman was a practical man, with experience of war. But he
>>was human.
> There were two options - firebombing or not. Firebombing shortened the
> war - as did the A-bombs. Emotion has no part in the decision. If
> there was later regret it was that it had to be done to achieve a
> quick end. At the time most of this country wanted to annihilate the
> Japs and many WWII vets still can't tolerate them.
There was argument then and now as to whether area bombing, and
particularly firebombing, was even effective in shortening the
war or reducing production of materiel.
I wonder if the Japanese might be keeping the memory of the horrible
firebombing alive, for later reprisal. Compare the US response
to the 9/11 attacks which killed a paltry 3000 people--we've taken
over two countries, and tens of thousands of civilians have been
killed in those countries. 100,000 men, women, and children baked
alive might still irritate the Japanese people a bit.
Truman didn't make the firebombing decision, BTW, that was before
he took office. I was wrong on that.
> You are a victim of history books and bleeding hearts - most of whom
> were never involved.
You are a slimy sonofabitch, if you think it takes a bleeding
heart to think that killing 100,000 noncombatants in a horribly
painful way is an awful decision.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733469 ] |
Di, 06 Dezember 2005 23:50 |
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:21:52 -0500,
Geoff <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> "Ye Old One" <usenet [at] mcsuk.net> wrote in message
> news:km49p19jv2f1p524oiednhkm8nsgtp9gco [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:50:31 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs [at] yahoo.nospam.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>>news:43930591.5973479 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net...
>>>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:05:06 -0800, Stanley Friesen
>>>> <sarima [at] friesen.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 2 Dec 2005 21:14:48 -0800, "Frank Sullivan"
>>>>>><gimbal.locked [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ok. How many Iraqi innocents died?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do we know that any did?
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, I think we can be sure of that. No war fought anywhere that people
>>>>>actually live has failed to kill some innocents. WWII killed far more
>>>>>innocents than the *total* deaths on *both* sides in this little brush
>>>>>war.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>The peace of God be with you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stanley Friesen
>>>>
>>>> That's pretty much the point. War can't be conducted without suffering
>>>> by innocents. But without war innocents suffer also as in Hitler's
>>>> slaughter of the Jews and the Japanese rape of parts of Asia and
>>>> bombing of Pearl.
>>>>
>>>> If we had not dropped the bombs on Japan how many more US innocents
>>>> might have died?
>>>
>>>Where exactly did any American innocents die in WWII?
>>>
>> The USA lost 9,512 Merchant Marines during the war, another 11,000+
>> civilians were lost in other ways - 69 of them at Pearl Harbour.
>
> OK...I'm not saying (as another poster did) that by the act of putting a
> uniform on one loses ones innocence. I think we might agree that by
> innocents, we mean noncombatants. I know MM's are noncombatants, but they
> were part of the US's logistical arm for the war so calling them innocents
> might be a stretch.
>
> I am surprised that 11k civilians were killed. Where did that happen? They
> had to be overseas US nationals, right?
>
> And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
> result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
> problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
> Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi. I'm sure Truman did too...it must
> have been an awful decision to make.
Total war, as a phenomona, is something quite new to humanity. While every
war that I care to conjure has caused the suffering and death of
noncombatants (often after a defeat with a conquering army pillaging, raping
and murdering), total war is another creature entirely. I wish I could keep
Churchill's History of WWII in my back pocket, but he basically describes
total war as involving every aspect of belligerant states. It is a horrific
type of warfare that, no matter how we may try to utter old cliches about
civilized battle with noncombatants left behind, essentially does not
recognize the notion of a noncombatant. Wars are supported by the
populations of the belligerant nations. Even when your attacks have little
direct tactical or strategic merit, suddenly firebombing entire cities so as
to literally terrify and cow the population becomes a possible choice.
It isn't right, of course. Whether its Dresden or Hiroshima, the debate as
to the military value of these attacks rages on. Once the Americans entered
the war, Germany's defeat was guaranteed, and Japan had been out maneuvered
long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The question in either case, I suppose,
was how to bring the two theaters to a conclusion as quickly as possible and
with as little loss of life and resources to the winning powers.
One must also remember that it is very easy in hindsight to go "oh yeah,
well we had the Japanese won at Midway and everything afterwards was an
anticlimax" or "once the Americans figured out how to put their boots on in
North Africa, it was only a matter of time before the Germans were crushed".
In the heat of this colossal war, of course, things may not have always
looked so plain.
One must also remember that, particularly for the British and Americans, it
was known long before Germany and Japan fell that the real enemy was going
to be the Soviet Union. Gaining as much ground as they could in Asia and
Europe meant, hopefully, that they would gain some balance of power against
the Russians. Japan, in particular, was to prove invaluable during the Cold
War, and I doubt very much that this was a realization that just suddenly
popped into everyone's head after the surrender of the Empire of Japan.
I'll tell you this. I wouldn't have wanted to have been in Truman's shoes.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733475 ] |
Mi, 07 Dezember 2005 00:04 |
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:50:34 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<4395bfac.13679029 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
[snip]
>There were two options - firebombing or not.
Wrong. The U.S. opposed the area bombing and firebombing in Europe, at
the least, and did not engage in it.
>Firebombing shortened the
>war
Not according to the Strategic Bombing Survey. Strategic bombing in
general, and the targeting of civilians in particular, was not cost
effective. The only advantage to the bombing was that it brought out
the German fighters and enabled us to kill their pilots.
>- as did the A-bombs. Emotion has no part in the decision.
It sure did. Revenge was frequently cited as a motive.
>If
>there was later regret it was that it had to be done to achieve a
>quick end. At the time most of this country wanted to annihilate the
>Japs and many WWII vets still can't tolerate them.
I thought that emotion did not play a part?
>You are a victim of history books and bleeding hearts - most of whom
>were never involved.
Ever read a history book? BTW, I can give you some names, McGovern
comes to mind, of bleeding hearts that were involved, and some names
of hawks, Reagan comes to mind, who were not involved.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733657 ] |
Mi, 07 Dezember 2005 05:21 |
|
"Noone Inparticular" <unreve89 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>>
>> This assumes a Normal Distribution. Probably reasonable for a summed
>> binomial, but ought to be formally justified.
>
>Good point. The nature of violence is such that it is not randomly
>distributed through time or space. So I'm not sure what distribution
>you're talking about, except perhaps the cause of death. This, again,
>is unlikely to have a normal curve. I'll check the paper and see.
Well, I was thinking simple number of deaths. Each person is either
dead or alive, with some probability of each state. But now that I
think on it, the result is not a binomial.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733722 ] |
Mi, 07 Dezember 2005 10:45 |
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
<snipped> Each person is either
> dead or alive, <snipped>
....though some mornings I'm not sure into which category I fall....
RF
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733835 ] |
Mi, 07 Dezember 2005 16:35 |
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:46:28 -0000, rich hammett
<bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:21:21 -0000, rich hammett
>> <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>>>>And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
>>>>>result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
>>>
>>>>>Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
>>>>>problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
>>>>>Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi. I'm sure Truman did too...it must
>>>>>have been an awful decision to make.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> It was a logical decision. I don't think "awful" belongs in that
>>>> sentence.
>>>
>>>If you don't think that the firebombing was awful, you aren't
>>>human. If you don't think the decision was awful, you aren't
>>>human.
>>>
>>>Truman was a practical man, with experience of war. But he
>>>was human.
>
>> There were two options - firebombing or not. Firebombing shortened the
>> war - as did the A-bombs. Emotion has no part in the decision. If
>> there was later regret it was that it had to be done to achieve a
>> quick end. At the time most of this country wanted to annihilate the
>> Japs and many WWII vets still can't tolerate them.
>
>There was argument then and now as to whether area bombing, and
>particularly firebombing, was even effective in shortening the
>war or reducing production of materiel.
It's tough to think of an act which does not generate an argument.
>I wonder if the Japanese might be keeping the memory of the horrible
>firebombing alive, for later reprisal.
I think they learned their lesson.
>Compare the US response
>to the 9/11 attacks which killed a paltry 3000 people--we've taken
>over two countries, and tens of thousands of civilians have been
>killed in those countries. 100,000 men, women, and children baked
>alive might still irritate the Japanese people a bit.
What woulkd you have done?
>
>Truman didn't make the firebombing decision, BTW, that was before
>he took office. I was wrong on that.
>
>> You are a victim of history books and bleeding hearts - most of whom
>> were never involved.
>
>You are a slimy sonofabitch, if you think it takes a bleeding
>heart to think that killing 100,000 noncombatants in a horribly
>painful way is an awful decision.
I thought you were an example of an honorable black man - now you beg
for the use of a derogatory and more colorful descriptive term. Clean
up your language and try your best to engage in intelligent
discussion.
The basic premise was whether it was an "awful decision" (review your
first response above). No one argues that firebombing doesn't have
awful results. The decision was not awful because it was the most
expedient way to bring the war to a swift conclusion - or the elected
decision makers at the time thought so.
If you differ with the decision then you must be for the horrible
deaths of American civilians which no doubt would have occurred had
the war continued - as in buzz bombs over England and the Luftwaffe.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733844 ] |
Mi, 07 Dezember 2005 16:41 |
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:04:45 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:50:34 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><4395bfac.13679029 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>There were two options - firebombing or not.
>
>Wrong. The U.S. opposed the area bombing and firebombing in Europe, at
>the least, and did not engage in it.
>
>>Firebombing shortened the
>>war
>
>Not according to the Strategic Bombing Survey. Strategic bombing in
>general, and the targeting of civilians in particular, was not cost
>effective. The only advantage to the bombing was that it brought out
>the German fighters and enabled us to kill their pilots.
If we make the distinction between areas, which was not done before, I
agree.
>>- as did the A-bombs. Emotion has no part in the decision.
>
>It sure did. Revenge was frequently cited as a motive.
I'll accept the exception.
>>If
>>there was later regret it was that it had to be done to achieve a
>>quick end. At the time most of this country wanted to annihilate the
>>Japs and many WWII vets still can't tolerate them.
>
>I thought that emotion did not play a part?
>
>>You are a victim of history books and bleeding hearts - most of whom
>>were never involved.
>
>Ever read a history book? BTW, I can give you some names, McGovern
>comes to mind, of bleeding hearts that were involved, and some names
>of hawks, Reagan comes to mind, who were not involved.
Didn't have time for the history books - I was there (Pacific) in
1945.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733903 ] |
Mi, 07 Dezember 2005 17:57 |
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:41:44 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<43970186.11025634 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:04:45 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:50:34 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><4395bfac.13679029 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>There were two options - firebombing or not.
>>
>>Wrong. The U.S. opposed the area bombing and firebombing in Europe, at
>>the least, and did not engage in it.
>>
>>>Firebombing shortened the
>>>war
>>
>>Not according to the Strategic Bombing Survey. Strategic bombing in
>>general, and the targeting of civilians in particular, was not cost
>>effective. The only advantage to the bombing was that it brought out
>>the German fighters and enabled us to kill their pilots.
>
>If we make the distinction between areas, which was not done before, I
>agree.
It is not clear that targeted strategic bombing, in WWII or any other
time, has been a cost effective action. The closest example we have is
the UN/US air war over Kosovo and that was not a strategic bombing
action.
For those who don't know, roughly speaking strategic bombing consist
of attacking indirect/civilian targets rather than direct military
ones. Attacking a troop concentration is tactical, blowing up a car
factory that might get turned to weapons is strategic. The
particularly problematic examples are the Spanish/German/British
attacks on cities in order to attack the moral "at home". Those
actions we know are always useless. What happens is that people will
give up everything except the war effort. So in WWII Americans at home
went to movies, the Germans gave up everything but still built
weapons. You pretty much have to eliminate the civilian population or
entire infrastructure to get a useful result.
As for Japan the firebombing was horribly destructive (and racist
based), but it was not effective. (I say racist because the U.S.
opposed those actions against Germany as ineffective.) Like the
Germans, like the British, the Japanese kept going to the factories
and kept sending their soldiers. What was somewhat effective, but
questionable as well, was the submarine campaign. We don't talk about
that much in the U.S. but the U.S. waged unrestricted submarine
warfare against the Japanese. This is the kind of warfare that we
objected to when the Germans did it and was one of our causes of war
in WWI. We were quite effective in this against Japan, we had almost
starved them into submission and probably removed their ability to
wage a long fight.
>>>- as did the A-bombs. Emotion has no part in the decision.
>>
>>It sure did. Revenge was frequently cited as a motive.
>
>I'll accept the exception.
>
>>>If
>>>there was later regret it was that it had to be done to achieve a
>>>quick end. At the time most of this country wanted to annihilate the
>>>Japs and many WWII vets still can't tolerate them.
>>
>>I thought that emotion did not play a part?
>>
>>>You are a victim of history books and bleeding hearts - most of whom
>>>were never involved.
>>
>>Ever read a history book? BTW, I can give you some names, McGovern
>>comes to mind, of bleeding hearts that were involved, and some names
>>of hawks, Reagan comes to mind, who were not involved.
>
>Didn't have time for the history books - I was there (Pacific) in
>1945.
Which does not make you an expert in decisions made in London and
Washington. I hope you survived intact and you were part of an
important task. (I can't comment on what you did because, obviously, I
don't know what you did.)
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733963 ] |
Mi, 07 Dezember 2005 19:38 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:46:28 -0000, rich hammett
> <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> >> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:21:21 -0000, rich hammett
> >> <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> >>>>>And just to add fuel to the fire, how many Japanese innocents died as a
> >>>>>result of the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo (firebombing)?
> >>>
> >>>>>Don't get me wrong, I think the war was morally justified. I just have a
> >>>>>problem with targeting civilians...whether they are Japanese, German,
> >>>>>Russian, Korean, Vietnamese, or Iraqi. I'm sure Truman did too...it must
> >>>>>have been an awful decision to make.
> >>>
> >>>[snip]
> >>>
> >>>> It was a logical decision. I don't think "awful" belongs in that
> >>>> sentence.
> >>>
> >>>If you don't think that the firebombing was awful, you aren't
> >>>human. If you don't think the decision was awful, you aren't
> >>>human.
> >>>
> >>>Truman was a practical man, with experience of war. But he
> >>>was human.
> >
> >> There were two options - firebombing or not. Firebombing shortened the
> >> war - as did the A-bombs. Emotion has no part in the decision. If
> >> there was later regret it was that it had to be done to achieve a
> >> quick end. At the time most of this country wanted to annihilate the
> >> Japs and many WWII vets still can't tolerate them.
> >
> >There was argument then and now as to whether area bombing, and
> >particularly firebombing, was even effective in shortening the
> >war or reducing production of materiel.
>
> It's tough to think of an act which does not generate an argument.
>
> >I wonder if the Japanese might be keeping the memory of the horrible
> >firebombing alive, for later reprisal.
>
> I think they learned their lesson.
I watched a young German shepard run off from the fella across the
street. He yelled for the dog to come back, chased it futilely, then
stomped back to his porch and fumed. When the dog wandered back close
by, the man called in in softly, then grabbed the dog, yelled at it,
beat it and called it names. My buddy and I speculated that the pup
learned a lesson there - but it wasn't the one the man would have
wanted it to learn.
I think Iran and North Korea learned lessons from our invasion of Iraq
- they both immediately stepped up their nuclear programs.
>
> >Compare the US response
> >to the 9/11 attacks which killed a paltry 3000 people--we've taken
> >over two countries, and tens of thousands of civilians have been
> >killed in those countries. 100,000 men, women, and children baked
> >alive might still irritate the Japanese people a bit.
>
> What woulkd you have done?
I would have invaded Afghanistan, which then was supporting the
Taliban, and helped them set up elections, then minimize our presence.
Pretty much what we actually did there. It never would have occured to
me to invade another Near East country, especially one which had not
attacked us, nor posed an immediate threat.
> >
> >Truman didn't make the firebombing decision, BTW, that was before
> >he took office. I was wrong on that.
> >
> >> You are a victim of history books and bleeding hearts - most of whom
> >> were never involved.
> >
> >You are a slimy sonofabitch, if you think it takes a bleeding
> >heart to think that killing 100,000 noncombatants in a horribly
> >painful way is an awful decision.
>
> I thought you were an example of an honorable black man - now you beg
> for the use of a derogatory and more colorful descriptive term. Clean
> up your language and try your best to engage in intelligent
> discussion.
>
> The basic premise was whether it was an "awful decision" (review your
> first response above). No one argues that firebombing doesn't have
> awful results. The decision was not awful because it was the most
> expedient way to bring the war to a swift conclusion - or the elected
> decision makers at the time thought so.
Seems that way. Revenge was also probably a big motivator. It is easy
now to condemn it as such, but few of us here have gone thru 3 to six
years of war. Things happen to people in prolonged stress, and I think
it is too easy for some folks - who have not had to deal with it
themselves - to condemn others for their subsequent behavior. Iraqis
come to mind, as well as out US troops over there.
>
> If you differ with the decision then you must be for the horrible
> deaths of American civilians which no doubt would have occurred had
> the war continued - as in buzz bombs over England and the Luftwaffe.
>
> Hugh
Kermit
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #733972 ] |
Mi, 07 Dezember 2005 20:03 |
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:50:34 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> <4395bfac.13679029 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >There were two options - firebombing or not.
>
> Wrong. The U.S. opposed the area bombing and firebombing in Europe, at
> the least, and did not engage in it.
>
> >Firebombing shortened the
> >war
>
> Not according to the Strategic Bombing Survey. Strategic bombing in
> general, and the targeting of civilians in particular, was not cost
> effective. The only advantage to the bombing was that it brought out
> the German fighters and enabled us to kill their pilots.
>
> >- as did the A-bombs. Emotion has no part in the decision.
>
> It sure did. Revenge was frequently cited as a motive.
I have also read that there were other motives in using the a-bombs on
Japan:
1. There were a lot of resources tied up in the development, and if
there was an opportunity to use it in a "combat" situation....then they
were going to bloody well do it.
2. Germany had already surrendered...so Japan was the only option.
3. There were estimates of up to a million casualties if a full scale
invasion of Japan had to be conducted with a populace that was willing
to fight back to the death. Dropping the bomb on Japan would not only
save US lives.....it would save Japanese lives too.
>
> >If
> >there was later regret it was that it had to be done to achieve a
> >quick end. At the time most of this country wanted to annihilate the
> >Japs and many WWII vets still can't tolerate them.
>
> I thought that emotion did not play a part?
>
> >You are a victim of history books and bleeding hearts - most of whom
> >were never involved.
>
> Ever read a history book? BTW, I can give you some names, McGovern
> comes to mind, of bleeding hearts that were involved, and some names
> of hawks, Reagan comes to mind, who were not involved.
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> http://www.beawitness.org
> http://www.darfurgenocide.org
> http://www.savedarfur.org
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734023 ] |
Mi, 07 Dezember 2005 22:33 |
|
On 7 Dec 2005 11:03:39 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>3. There were estimates of up to a million casualties if a full scale
>invasion of Japan had to be conducted with a populace that was willing
>to fight back to the death. Dropping the bomb on Japan would not only
>save US lives.....it would save Japanese lives too.
Operation Downfall, the US plan for the invasion of Japan, predicted
up to 1 million US dead. 4 to 6 million Japs and the almost total
destruction of the cities of Japan.
--
Bob.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734068 ] |
Mi, 07 Dezember 2005 23:40 |
|
On 7 Dec 2005 11:03:39 -0800, in talk.origins , "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> in
<1133982219.349902.93010 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:50:34 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>> sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>> <4395bfac.13679029 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >There were two options - firebombing or not.
>>
>> Wrong. The U.S. opposed the area bombing and firebombing in Europe, at
>> the least, and did not engage in it.
>>
>> >Firebombing shortened the
>> >war
>>
>> Not according to the Strategic Bombing Survey. Strategic bombing in
>> general, and the targeting of civilians in particular, was not cost
>> effective. The only advantage to the bombing was that it brought out
>> the German fighters and enabled us to kill their pilots.
>>
>> >- as did the A-bombs. Emotion has no part in the decision.
>>
>> It sure did. Revenge was frequently cited as a motive.
>
>I have also read that there were other motives in using the a-bombs on
>Japan:
>
>1. There were a lot of resources tied up in the development, and if
>there was an opportunity to use it in a "combat" situation....then they
>were going to bloody well do it.
A biography of Szilard had a quote from a general, not Groves, saying
that.
>2. Germany had already surrendered...so Japan was the only option.
>
>3. There were estimates of up to a million casualties if a full scale
>invasion of Japan had to be conducted with a populace that was willing
>to fight back to the death. Dropping the bomb on Japan would not only
>save US lives.....it would save Japanese lives too.
That is a post hoc rationalization if I have ever seen one.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734079 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 00:02 |
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:33:31 GMT, in talk.origins , Ye Old One
<usenet [at] mcsuk.net> in <t0lep1h406c3i1378hnf0f3bb9jjtfqk1o [at] 4ax.com>
wrote:
>On 7 Dec 2005 11:03:39 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
><ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>3. There were estimates of up to a million casualties if a full scale
>>invasion of Japan had to be conducted with a populace that was willing
>>to fight back to the death. Dropping the bomb on Japan would not only
>>save US lives.....it would save Japanese lives too.
>
>Operation Downfall, the US plan for the invasion of Japan, predicted
>up to 1 million US dead. 4 to 6 million Japs and the almost total
>destruction of the cities of Japan.
Did it take into account the almost total lack of food or fuel in
Japan?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734091 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 00:21 |
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2005 11:03:39 -0800, in talk.origins , "Ken Shackleton"
> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> in
> <1133982219.349902.93010 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:50:34 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >> sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> >> <4395bfac.13679029 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >There were two options - firebombing or not.
> >>
> >> Wrong. The U.S. opposed the area bombing and firebombing in Europe, at
> >> the least, and did not engage in it.
> >>
> >> >Firebombing shortened the
> >> >war
> >>
> >> Not according to the Strategic Bombing Survey. Strategic bombing in
> >> general, and the targeting of civilians in particular, was not cost
> >> effective. The only advantage to the bombing was that it brought out
> >> the German fighters and enabled us to kill their pilots.
> >>
> >> >- as did the A-bombs. Emotion has no part in the decision.
> >>
> >> It sure did. Revenge was frequently cited as a motive.
> >
> >I have also read that there were other motives in using the a-bombs on
> >Japan:
> >
> >1. There were a lot of resources tied up in the development, and if
> >there was an opportunity to use it in a "combat" situation....then they
> >were going to bloody well do it.
>
> A biography of Szilard had a quote from a general, not Groves, saying
> that.
>
> >2. Germany had already surrendered...so Japan was the only option.
> >
> >3. There were estimates of up to a million casualties if a full scale
> >invasion of Japan had to be conducted with a populace that was willing
> >to fight back to the death. Dropping the bomb on Japan would not only
> >save US lives.....it would save Japanese lives too.
>
> That is a post hoc rationalization if I have ever seen one.
Do you have evidence that any decision makers thought otherwise?
Motives can be mixed. I don't believe that I should kill because I am
frightened or angry. If a mugger attacks me, I might have to kill for
self-defense. The fact that I would probably *also be frightened and/or
angry does not make my act wrong.
If the best reasonable data indicated that it would save US lives, and
especially if it indicated that it would also save Japanese, then the
act was justified (or more accurately, if a best effort analysis under
the circumstances indicated that it was justified, then it was moral).
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> http://www.beawitness.org
> http://www.darfurgenocide.org
> http://www.savedarfur.org
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Kermit
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mär 12 14:03:43 CET 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,31507 Sekunden |
