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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (43359)	2/5/2002 6:18:52 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"And still they did not surrender. Talk about thick." Calling them "thick" simply shows that you are unaware of how their intransigence was rooted in historical developments, and cultural realities. Surrendering without the assurance that their God remained at least the titular head of their People was no better than being dead. "BTW, if you wish to continue insults, do so. You'll get to talk to yourself" I called you "thick" AFTER you had shot your mouth off with this: "I'm done with you. If you don't get it yet, then you are simply willfully ignorant or intentionally stupid. And facts are no cure for that. Try electric shock therapy." ..so don't give me none of your crap about insults. You don't get any free shots with me, Kid. You want to be treated like a gentleman, then you damn well act and speak like one. As to the rest of your post and your references to "roundeyes" and the Japanese having "stupid, thick skulls"...just what is your problem? This is not a hate thread against the Japanese. The central issue being discussed is whether the bombing of two civilian populations is an act that degraded or uplifted humanity. It is clear to me that the Japanese were entirely beaten, and that the only impediment to surrender was an agreement to not prosecute the Japanese God (which would have symbolized the extinction of their people), and to allow him the saving face of remaining a titular figurehead after surrender. They were quick to do this, after they had tested the bombs. So obviously they could have done it at any time. They could possibly have saved all the needless deaths of Okinawa. They had a naval blockade which strangled the Japanese from food and human essentials. They had absolute control to bomb, to wait, or to bring the war to a human end with the necessary concession to religious fanaticism. "And why is it OK to kill 100,000 civilians in a single conventional raid, but not OK to do it using an atomic bomb?" IMO, neither are ok. They both violate the agreements which reasonable people have agreed to guide their behaviours in war. There is a principle in human affairs which relates to both justice and innocence. There is a recognition, even between enemies, that harm should not be dealt out indiscriminately. There is a recognition that (for instance) children can neither initiate or repudiate the choices of adults, and that condemning innocence condemns all moral conceptions of justice as incomprehensible. There can be no sincere belief in "justice" without a genuine belief in a distinction between innocence and guilt. When All become guilty, and morality is relegated to the simplistic notion of "MIGHT" is "RIGHT"...then it becomes meaningless to talk about whether any action was or was not morally "justified". The US had 43,000 canisters of illegal mustard gas ready to go. I suppose, you are unable to make any moral distinction there, either? Your position seems to be: if we done it, it were good--screw the rules, and screw you. "What's Eisenhower got to do with this? He was ETO commander" His opinion is considered very important by many people, particularly his recollections of Potsdam.