|
Sports » rec.sport.football.college » Lies, damned lies...
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734106 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 00:40 |
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>
> That is a post hoc rationalization if I have ever seen one.
Wrong! It was a reasonable extroplation based on the resitance the Japs
put up at Okinawa. The Japs were crazy. It was they who invented the
suicide attack. Banzai!
The estimation of the difficulty of invasion was something like 12
(count them) Normandy invasions. And they there would be the resistance
the civillians would put up. That never happened in Europe, but it most
likely would happen in Japan. Crazy motherfuckers.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734108 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 00:42 |
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>
> Did it take into account the almost total lack of food or fuel in
> Japan?
Yes. They figured the Japs would die fighting since they had no hope for
the future. Whatever else was wrong with the Japs, they get an A plus
for spite. I rather admire that spirit. I think spite and schadenfreude
are noble impulses.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734111 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 00:50 |
|
unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> 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).
No this does NOT make it moral. It makes it expedient and, perhaps, the
best of two bad choices. There was NO good moral outcome. There could
be none.
>
> >
> > --
> > 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
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734121 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 01:10 |
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> 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?
>
What were all those kamikazes flying on at Okinawa? Seawater?
Buttmunch.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734122 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 01:11 |
|
Noone Inparticular wrote:
>
> No this does NOT make it moral. It makes it expedient and, perhaps, the
> best of two bad choices. There was NO good moral outcome. There could
> be none.
Killing your enemies is good in itself. Defending your own life or those
of your dependents by mortal force is a good thing to do. There are far
to many human germs who we suffer to live, but shouldn't. It is time to
purge the hive and cull the herd.
By the way, morality is just opinion. There is no such thing as a moral
fact. Things that please us or elicit our admiration we call good.
Things that apall us or fill us with loathing and fear we call bad.
There is no objective basis for either conclusion.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734145 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 01:48 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> Noone Inparticular wrote:
>>
>> No this does NOT make it moral. It makes it expedient and, perhaps, the
>> best of two bad choices. There was NO good moral outcome. There could
>> be none.
> Killing your enemies is good in itself.
Said the jihadist and the Nazi.
Surely you don't mean that...
rich
> Defending your own life or those
> of your dependents by mortal force is a good thing to do. There are far
> to many human germs who we suffer to live, but shouldn't. It is time to
> purge the hive and cull the herd.
> By the way, morality is just opinion. There is no such thing as a moral
> fact. Things that please us or elicit our admiration we call good.
> Things that apall us or fill us with loathing and fear we call bad.
> There is no objective basis for either conclusion.
> Bob Kolker
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734161 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 02:39 |
|
On 7 Dec 2005 10:38:30 -0800, unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
>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.
That might be coincidental - or not.
>
>>
>> >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.
I have a problem with our forcing countries to observe human rights.
But didn't we have an obligation to defend Kuwait? And do we know that
situation was not ready to erupt again?
>> Hugh
>
>Kermit
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734164 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 02:52 |
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:57:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>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.
I submit that in Japan and Germany no effort was voluntary. Giving up
everything but the war effort was not a choice.
>
>As for Japan the firebombing was horribly destructive (and racist
>based), but it was not effective.
I'll have to disagree. I saw Tokyo in October 1945. If you have
nothing you can't do much. You could get a beautiful sword or a fine
silk komono for a pack of cigarettes. They urinated on the streets
because there was no other place.
>(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.
Right. I only saw the results of the decisions.
>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.)
Thank you. I was only 17 and went overseas at the tail end of the war.
So I fared extremely well and my sole contribution was availability.
The 5,000 troops we brought back in December 1945, who had not been
home in years, were the heroes. I didn't even have a speaking part -
but I was there.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734165 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 02:54 |
|
On 7 Dec 2005 11:03:39 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> 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.
>
>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.
In my opinion the first two are hindsight. Of course they might have
been considerations but certainly unannounced.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734168 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 03:01 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:10:41 GMT, in talk.origins , Ike
<Ike [at] SHAEF.NET> in <5SKlf.4066$lb.308136 [at] news1.epix.net> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
>
>What were all those kamikazes flying on at Okinawa? Seawater?
They resorted to Kamikazes because they were low on fuel and low on
pilots. What fuel and food was available went to the army/navy, not to
the civilian population. They were hungry for some time after the war.
--
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 #734174 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 03:20 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2005 10:38:30 -0800, unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
....
>>>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.
>
>
> I have a problem with our forcing countries to observe human rights.
I don't. It is one of the things no nation has soverignty over.
> But didn't we have an obligation to defend Kuwait? And do we know that
> situation was not ready to erupt again?
Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait was in no
clear or present danger. There was never any justification for th einvasion,
or, if there was, we should invade about 150 nations.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734181 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 03:28 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:52:37 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<43978f53.47325971 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:57:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I submit that in Japan and Germany no effort was voluntary. Giving up
>everything but the war effort was not a choice.
They could have given up earlier, for example. You don't even see that
as a choice, which was sort of my point. Everyone knows that the
"hardy Brit" stood up to the Hun during the Blitz, why expect others
to act differently?
>>As for Japan the firebombing was horribly destructive (and racist
>>based), but it was not effective.
>
>I'll have to disagree. I saw Tokyo in October 1945. If you have
>nothing you can't do much. You could get a beautiful sword or a fine
>silk komono for a pack of cigarettes. They urinated on the streets
>because there was no other place.
It was not effective in *shortening* the war. And I should say it was
not cost effective. Sure, it did damage, but it also too resource that
could have gone elsewhere.
>>(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.
>
>Right. I only saw the results of the decisions.
Some of them.
>>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.)
>
>Thank you. I was only 17 and went overseas at the tail end of the war.
>So I fared extremely well and my sole contribution was availability.
>The 5,000 troops we brought back in December 1945, who had not been
>home in years, were the heroes. I didn't even have a speaking part -
>but I was there.
Probably enough to be enough.
--
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 #734182 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 03:32 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>
>>Noone Inparticular wrote:
>
>
>>>No this does NOT make it moral. It makes it expedient and, perhaps, the
>>>best of two bad choices. There was NO good moral outcome. There could
>>>be none.
>
>
>>Killing your enemies is good in itself.
>
>
> Said the jihadist and the Nazi.
>
> Surely you don't mean that...
>
> rich
Bob means it all the way up to his enemies acting in the same manner,
then he comes over all holier than thou, and disparages them for their
actions. Go figure.
Shane
[...]
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734189 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 03:45 |
|
John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
> Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait
> was in no clear or present danger. There was never any justification
> for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should invade about 150
> nations.
Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could take all
the cheese and the women.
--
"I wish people who had trouble communicating would just shut up."
-- Tom Lehrer
Sponsor me in the 2006 Special Olympics Vermont "Penguin Plunge":
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/jayfurr
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734198 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 03:55 |
|
Jay Furr wrote:
> John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
> news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>
>
>>Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait
>>was in no clear or present danger. There was never any justification
>>for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should invade about 150
>>nations.
>
>
> Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could take all
> the cheese and the women.
>
Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death penalty, clear
separation of state and church. *They* should invade *you*.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734201 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 04:01 |
|
John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
news:dn87c1$2bl9$1 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>> Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could
>> take all the cheese and the women.
>>
> Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death penalty,
> clear separation of state and church. *They* should invade *you*.
They forbid people from even wearing head scarves or crucifix pendant
jewelry to school. You call *that* clear separation of church and state?
--
"I wish people who had trouble communicating would just shut up."
-- Tom Lehrer
Sponsor me in the 2006 Special Olympics Vermont "Penguin Plunge":
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/jayfurr
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734212 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 04:20 |
|
Jay Furr wrote:
> John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
> news:dn87c1$2bl9$1 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>
>
>>>Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could
>>>take all the cheese and the women.
>>>
>>
>>Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death penalty,
>>clear separation of state and church. *They* should invade *you*.
>
>
> They forbid people from even wearing head scarves or crucifix pendant
> jewelry to school. You call *that* clear separation of church and state?
>
They forbid differentiation of students on religious grounds in state-run and
funded schools. Yep, it is. I don't think it is a wise move, but it is clearly
founded on a separation of church and state.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734213 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 04:24 |
|
shane wrote:
>
>
> Bob means it all the way up to his enemies acting in the same manner,
> then he comes over all holier than thou, and disparages them for their
> actions. Go figure.
There is a big difference They started it. Whatsoever your enemy do to
you, it shall be requited ten thousand fold. Neither forget nor forgive.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734214 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 04:26 |
|
Jay Furr wrote:
>
>
> They forbid people from even wearing head scarves or crucifix pendant
> jewelry to school. You call *that* clear separation of church and state?
A separation of religion and state. The message is clear. Leave your
religion at home or in your place of worship. Do not bring it to a state
run and financed school.
Bob Kolker
>
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734217 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 04:33 |
|
John Wilkins wrote:
> Jay Furr wrote:
>> John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
>> news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>>
>>
>>> Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait
>>> was in no clear or present danger. There was never any justification
>>> for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should invade about 150
>>> nations.
>>
>>
>> Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could
>> take all the cheese and the women.
>>
> Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death
> penalty, clear separation of state and church. *They* should invade
> *you*.
France doesn't have a clear separation of church and state, secular society
or universal human rights.
Public tax money supports religious schools in France. Established churches
prior to 1905 are owned by the state, and operated for religious services.
Alsace Moselle subsidizes the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church,
the Reformed Church and ironically, the Jewish religion. So much for the
separation of church and state and secular society.
Individual rights? How about the right to property?
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734218 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 04:34 |
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Jay Furr wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> They forbid people from even wearing head scarves or crucifix pendant
>> jewelry to school. You call *that* clear separation of church and
>> state?
>
> A separation of religion and state. The message is clear. Leave your
> religion at home or in your place of worship. Do not bring it to a
> state run and financed school.
Unless that state run and financed school is a Catholic school, or one of
the Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed or Jewish schools in Alsace Moselle.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734221 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 04:42 |
|
Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
>>Jay Furr wrote:
>>
>>>John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
>>>news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait
>>>>was in no clear or present danger. There was never any justification
>>>>for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should invade about 150
>>>>nations.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could
>>>take all the cheese and the women.
>>>
>>
>>Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death
>>penalty, clear separation of state and church. *They* should invade
>>*you*.
>
>
> France doesn't have a clear separation of church and state, secular society
> or universal human rights.
>
> Public tax money supports religious schools in France. Established churches
> prior to 1905 are owned by the state, and operated for religious services.
> Alsace Moselle subsidizes the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church,
> the Reformed Church and ironically, the Jewish religion. So much for the
> separation of church and state and secular society.
>
> Individual rights? How about the right to property?
>
Public tax monies support religious schools in Australia too. So what?
Children get educated there. But the state, here and I presume in France,
doesn't dictate who can wear religious motifs in a religious school.
And where does the right to property come into this? (And don't you in the
States have a little problem with eminent domain?)
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734245 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 05:02 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:20:00 +1000, John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2005 10:38:30 -0800, unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>...
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>> I have a problem with our forcing countries to observe human rights.
>
>I don't. It is one of the things no nation has soverignty over.
On what basis do you make that determination?
>
>> But didn't we have an obligation to defend Kuwait? And do we know that
>> situation was not ready to erupt again?
>
>Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait was in no
>clear or present danger. There was never any justification for th einvasion,
>or, if there was, we should invade about 150 nations.
I was not privy to the discussions that led to us being there. But our
representatives voted to invade and they were privy to the info.
But, if no nation has soverignty over human rights, why do you not
favor our intervention. As I read what you say the position seems
inconsistent.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734246 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 05:03 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:55:59 +1000, John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au>
wrote:
>Jay Furr wrote:
>> John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
>> news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>>
>>
>>>Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait
>>>was in no clear or present danger. There was never any justification
>>>for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should invade about 150
>>>nations.
>>
>>
>> Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could take all
>> the cheese and the women.
>>
>Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death penalty, clear
>separation of state and church. *They* should invade *you*.
As I read a couple of those positions it becomes clear why France is
such a failure.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734253 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 05:12 |
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:26:32 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote:
>Jay Furr wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> They forbid people from even wearing head scarves or crucifix pendant
>> jewelry to school. You call *that* clear separation of church and state?
>
>A separation of religion and state. The message is clear. Leave your
>religion at home or in your place of worship. Do not bring it to a state
>run and financed school.
>
>Bob Kolker
What is the legal basis for your separation of church and state? The
Constitution says "Congress shall make NO (emphasis supplied) law..."
"State run" sounds ominous - Heil Somebody.
And a religious man is never apart from his religion for long. Whether
it is obvious is a "whole nother ball game"..
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734256 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 05:24 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:28:40 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:52:37 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><43978f53.47325971 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:57:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>I submit that in Japan and Germany no effort was voluntary. Giving up
>>everything but the war effort was not a choice.
>
>They could have given up earlier, for example. You don't even see that
>as a choice, which was sort of my point. Everyone knows that the
>"hardy Brit" stood up to the Hun during the Blitz, why expect others
>to act differently?
I think they were prepared to fight to the last man. That is until,
you might say, they saw the light. The "hardy Brit" could see the USA
coming.
>>>As for Japan the firebombing was horribly destructive (and racist
>>>based), but it was not effective.
>>
>>I'll have to disagree. I saw Tokyo in October 1945. If you have
>>nothing you can't do much. You could get a beautiful sword or a fine
>>silk komono for a pack of cigarettes. They urinated on the streets
>>because there was no other place.
>
>It was not effective in *shortening* the war.
Are you saying Japan would have surrendered when they did had we not
dropped the bomb? That flies against all the intelligence of the time.
>And I should say it was
>not cost effective. Sure, it did damage, but it also too resource that
>could have gone elsewhere.
Where?
>>>(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.
>>
>>Right. I only saw the results of the decisions.
>
>Some of them.
>
>>>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.)
>>
>>Thank you. I was only 17 and went overseas at the tail end of the war.
>>So I fared extremely well and my sole contribution was availability.
>>The 5,000 troops we brought back in December 1945, who had not been
>>home in years, were the heroes. I didn't even have a speaking part -
>>but I was there.
>
>Probably enough to be enough.
It was like the 3rd string QB. He only gets to play when the game is
won. If the others are good enough he gets to letter, too.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734289 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 06:02 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 04:24:18 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<4397b35b.56549854 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:28:40 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:52:37 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><43978f53.47325971 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:57:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
[snip]
>>>>As for Japan the firebombing was horribly destructive (and racist
>>>>based), but it was not effective.
>>>
>>>I'll have to disagree. I saw Tokyo in October 1945. If you have
>>>nothing you can't do much. You could get a beautiful sword or a fine
>>>silk komono for a pack of cigarettes. They urinated on the streets
>>>because there was no other place.
>>
>>It was not effective in *shortening* the war.
>
>Are you saying Japan would have surrendered when they did had we not
>dropped the bomb? That flies against all the intelligence of the time.
We were talking about the firebombing, not the atomic bomb. If we had
not put our effort into the strategic bombing we would have had more
resources to fight the island war. So we might have gotten close to
the mainland sooner. Though, to be fair, the Pacific war was always a
side effort. Everyone knew that the Japanese were going to loose no
matter what. At least after Coral Sea it was pretty clear and after
Midway it was over.
And, yes, I do think that the Japanese would have given up even if we
had not dropped the A bombs. The intelligence is not clear on this at
all and there is evidence that the Japanese were trying to tell us
they were ready to give up. We had other option anyway. Drop the bomb
on a small town near Tokyo. Or at sea close to Tokyo.
>>And I should say it was
>>not cost effective. Sure, it did damage, but it also too resource that
>>could have gone elsewhere.
>
>Where?
LST, P-51, etc. We had a fixed amount of resources. More than any
previous contest WWII was an exercise in efficient resource planning
and utilization. They had a strategy set in '42 based on expectations
of building capability. Landing craft were one of the major limiting
factors. (So were fighter pilots.) Less effort in strategic bombing
means more for those.
[snip]
--
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 #734297 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 06:13 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> shane wrote:
>>
>> Bob means it all the way up to his enemies acting in the same manner,
>> then he comes over all holier than thou, and disparages them for their
>> actions. Go figure.
> There is a big difference They started it. Whatsoever your enemy do to
> you, it shall be requited ten thousand fold. Neither forget nor forgive.
MOMMY! HE STARTED 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 #734379 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 14:34 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:02:22 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 04:24:18 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>[snip]
I agree with the snipping - these things get to long.
>
>>>>>As for Japan the firebombing was horribly destructive (and racist
>>>>>based), but it was not effective.
>>>>
>>>>I'll have to disagree. I saw Tokyo in October 1945. If you have
>>>>nothing you can't do much. You could get a beautiful sword or a fine
>>>>silk komono for a pack of cigarettes. They urinated on the streets
>>>>because there was no other place.
>>>
>>>It was not effective in *shortening* the war.
>>
>>Are you saying Japan would have surrendered when they did had we not
>>dropped the bomb? That flies against all the intelligence of the time.
>
>We were talking about the firebombing, not the atomic bomb. If we had
>not put our effort into the strategic bombing we would have had more
>resources to fight the island war. So we might have gotten close to
>the mainland sooner. Though, to be fair, the Pacific war was always a
>side effort. Everyone knew that the Japanese were going to loose no
>matter what. At least after Coral Sea it was pretty clear and after
>Midway it was over.
And we were talking about shortening the war - not getting in a better
position to win a longer war.
>And, yes, I do think that the Japanese would have given up even if we
>had not dropped the A bombs. The intelligence is not clear on this at
>all and there is evidence that the Japanese were trying to tell us
>they were ready to give up. We had other option anyway. Drop the bomb
>on a small town near Tokyo. Or at sea close to Tokyo.
I think we were right in hastening that decision. Even in a boxing
match you don't toy with a dangerous opponent. You get him out of
there as quickly as possible. Even if I agreed with you it was payback
for Pearl time.
>>>And I should say it was
>>>not cost effective. Sure, it did damage, but it also too resource that
>>>could have gone elsewhere.
>>
>>Where?
>
>LST, P-51, etc. We had a fixed amount of resources. More than any
>previous contest WWII was an exercise in efficient resource planning
>and utilization. They had a strategy set in '42 based on expectations
>of building capability. Landing craft were one of the major limiting
>factors. (So were fighter pilots.) Less effort in strategic bombing
>means more for those.
>[snip]
Landing craft would have meant thousands more dead Americans in an
invasion. Better to take out a few million Japs.
I think the elimination of the need for all that invasion planning was
a greater priority. And I find it difficult to argue with success.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734380 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 14:35 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:13:34 -0000, rich hammett
<bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
>In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> shane wrote:
>>>
>>> Bob means it all the way up to his enemies acting in the same manner,
>>> then he comes over all holier than thou, and disparages them for their
>>> actions. Go figure.
>
>> There is a big difference They started it. Whatsoever your enemy do to
>> you, it shall be requited ten thousand fold. Neither forget nor forgive.
>
>MOMMY! HE STARTED IT!
>
>rich
That's about the saddest response I have ever heard about the bombing
of Pearl - not that the source of the comment was unexpected.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734414 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 15:40 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>
> Landing craft would have meant thousands more dead Americans in an
> invasion. Better to take out a few million Japs.
>
> I think the elimination of the need for all that invasion planning was
> a greater priority. And I find it difficult to argue with success.
At last! A voice of reason.
By the way, the Pacific war was all about revenge. Our war of choice was
with Germany and its allies. The Pacific war never got more than 15 or
20 percent of the total resources expended during WW2 until the
surrender of Germany in May of 1945.
If just getting a surrenders was the issue, the U.S. could have laid
seige to Japan and starved her people and government into capitulation.
But that would have taken a while. Killing and wrecking is much quicker
and yields greater satisfaction. I am sure Curtiss LeMay wet his pants
when he authorized the A-bombing of Japanese cities. LeMay once said
that the only difference between war and peace is where we put our
bombs. Whataguy! My Hero.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734433 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 16:31 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:28:40 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:52:37 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><43978f53.47325971 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:57:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I submit that in Japan and Germany no effort was voluntary. Giving up
>>>everything but the war effort was not a choice.
>>
>>They could have given up earlier, for example. You don't even see that
>>as a choice, which was sort of my point. Everyone knows that the
>>"hardy Brit" stood up to the Hun during the Blitz, why expect others
>>to act differently?
>
> I think they were prepared to fight to the last man. That is until,
> you might say, they saw the light. The "hardy Brit" could see the USA
> coming.
>
>>>>As for Japan the firebombing was horribly destructive (and racist
>>>>based), but it was not effective.
>>>
>>>I'll have to disagree. I saw Tokyo in October 1945. If you have
>>>nothing you can't do much. You could get a beautiful sword or a fine
>>>silk komono for a pack of cigarettes. They urinated on the streets
>>>because there was no other place.
>>
>>It was not effective in *shortening* the war.
>
> Are you saying Japan would have surrendered when they did had we not
> dropped the bomb? That flies against all the intelligence of the time.
There certainly is some evidence that Japan was on the verge of surrendering
prior to the Hiroshima drop - and tons of evidence that surrender was
extremely likely post-Hiroshima and pre-Nagasaki. It is quite likely that
dropping the Nagasaki bomb did nothing to shorten the war.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734444 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 16:58 |
|
aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net wrote:
>
>
> There certainly is some evidence that Japan was on the verge of surrendering
> prior to the Hiroshima drop - and tons of evidence that surrender was
> extremely likely post-Hiroshima and pre-Nagasaki. It is quite likely that
> dropping the Nagasaki bomb did nothing to shorten the war.
>
Bullshit. The Japs were ready to fight to the last soldier, civillian
and child. They were, at that time, crazy suicidal motherfuckers who
knowing they would probably die would inflict as many casualities on the
gai jiin as they could. The Japs did not regard the matter of loss
logically. The Germans surrendered. The Japs did not have a word for
surrender or capitulation. They operated under the code of bushido.
Norman Schwatzkopf, who is a brilliant strategist figure a half million
casualties if we had invaded per Operation Downfall. The Japs had no
where to go. They just would have stood there and fought to the death.
Think of the scence in -Monty Python and the Holy Grail-. The Black
Knight vs Arthru, King of the Britons.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734451 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 17:17 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:40:17 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Landing craft would have meant thousands more dead Americans in an
>> invasion. Better to take out a few million Japs.
>>
>> I think the elimination of the need for all that invasion planning was
>> a greater priority. And I find it difficult to argue with success.
>
>At last! A voice of reason.
>
>By the way, the Pacific war was all about revenge. Our war of choice was
>with Germany and its allies. The Pacific war never got more than 15 or
>20 percent of the total resources expended during WW2 until the
>surrender of Germany in May of 1945.
Even now the hatred in this country doesn't rival the hatred in 1941.
I guess you had to be there...
There are so many later day theories about Japan entering the war -
some even saying that FDR egged them on.
>If just getting a surrenders was the issue, the U.S. could have laid
>seige to Japan and starved her people and government into capitulation.
Many people overlook that point. Japan has always had to depend on
imports for existence. The Pearl Harbor bombs were mostly our scrap
iron.
Hugh
>But that would have taken a while. Killing and wrecking is much quicker
>and yields greater satisfaction. I am sure Curtiss LeMay wet his pants
>when he authorized the A-bombing of Japanese cities. LeMay once said
>that the only difference between war and peace is where we put our
>bombs. Whataguy! My Hero.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734454 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 17:17 |
|
aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net wrote:
> > Are you saying Japan would have surrendered when they did had we not
> > dropped the bomb? That flies against all the intelligence of the time.
> There certainly is some evidence that Japan was on the verge
> of surrendering prior to the Hiroshima drop - and tons of
> evidence that surrender was extremely likely post-Hiroshima
> and pre-Nagasaki. It is quite likely that dropping the Nagasaki
> bomb did nothing to shorten the war.
Even after Nagasaki leaders in the military didn't want to
surrender. Even to the point of an attempted coup.
-Tom Enright
> --
> Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734455 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 17:24 |
|
On 8 Dec 2005 15:31:29 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:28:40 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:52:37 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>><43978f53.47325971 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:57:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>I submit that in Japan and Germany no effort was voluntary. Giving up
>>>>everything but the war effort was not a choice.
>>>
>>>They could have given up earlier, for example. You don't even see that
>>>as a choice, which was sort of my point. Everyone knows that the
>>>"hardy Brit" stood up to the Hun during the Blitz, why expect others
>>>to act differently?
>>
>> I think they were prepared to fight to the last man. That is until,
>> you might say, they saw the light. The "hardy Brit" could see the USA
>> coming.
>>
>>>>>As for Japan the firebombing was horribly destructive (and racist
>>>>>based), but it was not effective.
>>>>
>>>>I'll have to disagree. I saw Tokyo in October 1945. If you have
>>>>nothing you can't do much. You could get a beautiful sword or a fine
>>>>silk komono for a pack of cigarettes. They urinated on the streets
>>>>because there was no other place.
>>>
>>>It was not effective in *shortening* the war.
>>
>> Are you saying Japan would have surrendered when they did had we not
>> dropped the bomb? That flies against all the intelligence of the time.
>
>There certainly is some evidence that Japan was on the verge of surrendering
>prior to the Hiroshima drop - and tons of evidence that surrender was
>extremely likely post-Hiroshima and pre-Nagasaki. It is quite likely that
>dropping the Nagasaki bomb did nothing to shorten the war.
>
>--
>Aaron
But it's also quite likely that it did. One could look at it as
insurance.
I suspect you and I have "been on the verge" of something and changed
our minds.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734469 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 17:37 |
|
Tom Enright wrote:
>
>
> Even after Nagasaki leaders in the military didn't want to
> surrender. Even to the point of an attempted coup.
Yup. The Black Knight vs Arthur, King of the Britons.
The attempted coup was a close thing. If it had succeeded we would have
had to drop more nukes on Japan (two a month were in the pipeline) and
the Russians would have invaded from the north. Just what we needed.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734478 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 17:54 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:13:34 -0000, rich hammett
> <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
>>In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>> shane wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bob means it all the way up to his enemies acting in the same manner,
>>>> then he comes over all holier than thou, and disparages them for their
>>>> actions. Go figure.
>>
>>> There is a big difference They started it. Whatsoever your enemy do to
>>> you, it shall be requited ten thousand fold. Neither forget nor forgive.
>>
>>MOMMY! HE STARTED IT!
> That's about the saddest response I have ever heard about the bombing
> of Pearl - not that the source of the comment was unexpected.
Hugh, you should think about it some more if it went over your
head.
Bob is trying to justify his opinion that destroying anyone
he can call an enemy is an absolute moral good. He doesn't
want to extend the same privilege to the rest of humanity,
though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan? Surely
an oil blockade is an act of war? We were quite justified to
do so, but if one wants legal pretexts to blame the other guy,
they are always there.
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 #734493 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 18:16 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>
> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734494 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 18:20 |
|
In article <dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> > On 7 Dec 2005 10:38:30 -0800, unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> ...
>
> >>>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.
> >
> >
> > I have a problem with our forcing countries to observe human rights.
>
> I don't. It is one of the things no nation has soverignty over.
>
> > But didn't we have an obligation to defend Kuwait? And do we know that
> > situation was not ready to erupt again?
>
> Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait was in
> no
> clear or present danger. There was never any justification for th einvasion,
> or, if there was, we should invade about 150 nations.
I'm sure Australia cannot afford to invade 150 nations.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Mär 11 13:31:38 CET 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,15200 Sekunden |
