Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (41504)	12/23/2001 6:46:42 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

You forget, that if Solon is indeed Canadian (constituting the lone obnoxious Canadian in the world) it wouldn't have been his compatriots getting slaughtered trying to invade the Japanese homeland. Indeed, it may be that his thought is that so many American soldiers would have been killed in that invasion that Canada could have come down and walked in and taken over the US and our military, destroyed by the invasion, would have been unable to prevent it. So from the Canadian perspective, opposing our dropping the bombs is very patriotic, and it was a shame that we prevented their takeover plans by ending the war before all our soldiers had been slaughtered.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (41504)	12/24/2001 4:48:22 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

We were not talking about June. We were talking about whether targeting children and other innocent civilians is an ethical means to an end; and we were questioning whether the a-bomb deaths were responsible for ending the war. Assuming absolutely NO bias in this U.S. report (which is hardly fair, is it, considering the extreme bias which the Supreme Court identified against the Government during the rial of Yamshita), the war still would have "in all probability" been over within 7 weeks of Nagasaki--even if the bombs had not been dropped. The war was effectively over. Indeed, "The public admission of defeat by the responsible Japanese leaders, which constituted the political objective of the United States offensive begun in 1943, was thus secured prior to invasion..." Unless you have some new information (credible, if you please) that Japan would not have surrendered before the end of September, regardless of the August a-bomb drops, or the Russian entry--then you have no offered no basis to deny the evidence that has been rubbed on your nose for several weeks now from the SBR, to wit: that the war was effectively over before the decision to drop those bombs, and had been declared over by Japanese leaders, even though they had not yet "officially" surrendered. As I said, there CAN be reasonable debate as to whether the degree of ignorance of this fact may or may not excuse the dropping of the nuclear bombs. There may be debate about whether or not the gruesome choice of incendiary bombing of civilian populations rather than troops, servicemen, military bases, per se, may or may not be defended as an ethical path to victory. Unfortunately, you have ignored any meaningful comment on the ethical implications of targeting civilians; and you have ignored any meaningful comment as to whether or to what degree, if any, ignorance of the impending surrender could or ought to mitigate the suggestion of ethical malfeasance. Instead, you have engaged in hapless and irrelevant postings, while presenting churlish and childish "arguments", consisting, almost wholly (as we have come to expect from you) of personal innuendo and ad hominem attacks--with which you festoon and adorn all your other pathetic behind the back postings, LOL!! Although I have given you every opportunity to save face, and to get out of your own sewage; yet you continue to persist in this childish hostility. How is this an adult alternative to sound ideas? Are you unable to muster even a minimal appearance of intelligence and dignity? Although you have earned my pity, it would be unfair of me not to acknowledge that you have also earned my contempt. Your responses and your innuendo and your desperate gnashing of teeth: all these indicate conclusively that there is nothing of good faith in your rejoinders to me. You are simply playing out an unfortunate personality disorder. As I said before, I do pity you. "The public admission of defeat by the responsible Japanese leaders, which constituted the political objective of the United States offensive begun in 1943, was thus secured prior to invasion...Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." B-29s destroyed the most part of 66 communities--burning 180 square miles to the ground. This incendiary bombing killed more civilians than ALL the ALLIED bombing of Germany over the ENTIRE war. These are the ethical questions that may be debated; but apparently you are too busy nursing your tender hurt feelings eh, Mr. Dithers!!