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: Solon who wrote (42351)	1/15/2002 5:39:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

(you, yourself, said repeatedlyn that the Japanese were helpless yet you still indulge in this sily game of ("you couldn't have killed all of them"...). The fact that we could not have killed them all is not being used by me as an argument to support the idea that they did not face defeat. My mentioning it was only a response to a specific inaccurate statement and was not meant to have greater significance then as a refutation of that statement. I think that neither that statement nor my refutation of it is central to either side of this argument. We DID destroy all their major cities. It is not really about killing every every single crawling person for Christ's sake. We did severely damage all of their major cities. I'm not sure that we completely destroyed any of them. Many millions of people were still living in those cities at wars end. Also I am not talking about "one child is able to survive in a tunnel" but rather millions of survivors. Although I suppose famine and the effects of wiping out their economy could have reduced those millions to hundreds of thousands. I think we have adequately stated our positions on this. I might just let you have the last word and have it done (but I am not making any promises <g>) In particular I am likely to give you the last word on the "we could have wiped them all out" argument because it is a minor side argument that has taken over the conversation. Tim