Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (42254)	1/14/2002 6:38:36 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) of 82486

The naval blockade and the heavy mining of Japanese waters were sufficient guarantee that nothing was going in or out of Japan by the water. And the only thing allowed in the air were American bombers. So were we supposed to continue keeping our native off the Japanese coast for the next thousand years blockading it? And continue conventional bombing forever? Suppose they did decide they would not surrender? It does appear that something like that was the case. It is not on the beaches where allied casualties would occur, but in the mountains where the guerrillas hoped to mount their resistance. Such nonsense would indeed cost allied lives: so a diplomatic end to the war as in negotiating the terms of surrender was the practical approach. So we could take the coastal areas but be forever subject to harassing raids from inland? Nuts. The only terms the Japanese militants would have agreed to would have been unacceptable to the US. The US intended to drain the swamp. And did. At this point, I think it would be safe to say that even the vast majority of Japanese would agree that we did them a favor by ousting the militarists and imposing democracy and a decent constitution on them.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next