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: TimF who wrote (42214)	1/14/2002 2:18:23 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"In Iraq a greater number of larger bombs were dropped with much greater accuracy on a country that apparently had less targets. If there were targets left in Iraq (and there was) it seems logical that there where targets left in Japan. This is nonsensical. In first place, 36 thousand more tonnes were dropped in Japan than in Iraq (Iraq only had 125,000 tonnes). In the second place, the bombing of Japan was indiscriminate in that incendiary cluster bombs were used in order to burn down whole cities. The world will no longer tolerate that type of warfare; so the war in Iraq was conducted as an exercise in precision military bombing, using all the advanced equipment that was unavailable a half century ago, and conducting the war under a different moral ethic...with quite different moral parameters. No legitimate comparison may be made between Japan and Iraq. There is no logical reason for the report to have operated on the assumptiont that somehow this would stop in the Summer of 45. The report is not making the assumptions: you are. It is just that you are making them in a self serving and illogical way. Keeping up pressure from the air means maintaining air control and bombing as needed. The bombing campaign had already ran through the list of targets except for those reserved for the atom bomb. If the targets have already been bombed, there would seem to be little value in heavy bombing the same targets over and again. So your assumption seem a bit gratuitous. "Not likely, infact it would have been almost impossible even if we kept up the heavy bombing and use nukes as quickly as we could build them" That is ridiculous. Nuclear bombs strategically dropped would have killed everyone--either directly, or through radiation poisoning. They practically levelled the whole country in 9 months. Having removed all resistance, how much longer do you think it would take if the goal was simply to obliterate life? Try to be sensible, Tim. "If he is going to kill many people then is it not a matter of defense. As you said: "I agree with you about not punishing people for something they have not done" Aside from that, any claim of self defence must honor the principle of not using excessive force. "there is no evidence of all these travelers mucking around history The real reason time travel doesn't exist is because the future doesn't exist.