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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (135939)	6/7/2004 9:24:08 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 281500

You got the facts and logic in there but missed the it's another story and the all someone elses fault. You spend so much time on sarcasm that you miss making a point.

To: Win Smith who wrote (135939)	6/7/2004 9:44:27 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<No nation could long resist destruction on such a scale—a conclusion formally reached by the United States Strategic Bombing Survey in its Summary Report (Pacific War): "Japan would have surrendered [by late 1945] even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war [on August 8], and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." >>> This statement indicates the great difficulties of setting history in order. Of learning from the past with all the unsettled "what if" questions left over years or centuries later. What if Saddam had used WMD's ?. What if he had shot missiles toward Israel instead of Kuwait? What if Al Sadr had been a victim of the missiles? What if the UN Inspectors had given Saddam a clean slate in July of 2003? What if Al Gore had been President in 2001? Writers will make, and are making a fortune, hashing over the what-ifs from this Iraqi operation without even setting foot in Iraq. With 27-7 electric power and AC, ensconced in a plush office, re-arranging words said by people they have never met. And complaining about the government and the decisions which have made our cities much, much, safer and less vulnerable than they were 2 years ago. Sig.

To: Win Smith who wrote (135939)	6/7/2004 10:57:46 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Good article!! And I concur that using Nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was little different than fire-bombing Tokyo.. Each of them still targeted civilians. I can say that I'm against wholesale targeting of civilian populations because I live in a period of time where we have GPS and laser guided bombs that can hit with high precision. But if I had been in Truman's position, I don't believe I would have made a different decision when forced to weigh the value of Japanese lives versus those of American soldiers. Hawk