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 (42289)	1/14/2002 7:18:32 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) of 82486

Is that the only alternative to nuclear warfare??? You got another one? It would have played right into the hands of the militarists. It probably would have encouraged a conditional surrender which was the whole desire of the vast majority of the fanatics. The desire of the fanatics was not a conditional surrender. It was a to-the-death, to-the-last-man, woman, or child fight. And they were preparing for it. Those mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki made it clear to EVERYONE- -including non-fanatics who were wavering- - that they could not possibly hope for anything but extinction if they did not surrender. But no matter: we agreed to a conditional surrender after destroying the inhabitants of two cities who were totally helpless. The "conditional" part of that surrender was that they got to keep their emperor. That was it. All of it. Other than that, we got to occupy the country for years, we got bases that we still have, we got to dictate their constitution and who got what position in their government, and we got to try their generals for war crimes. Some "conditional" The only difference between that "conditional" surrender and Germany's unconditional surrender was the emperor bit.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next