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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arno who wrote (107330)	8/8/2005 1:08:45 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Respond to of 108807

Interesting how proud they were of themselves in many of those horrid pictures. Nothing like a little bayonet practice on live prisoners to make your day go by fast. Or how about the 2 doods in the beheading contest. That's really neat. What was it we did at Gitmo that compares to all of this?

To: arno who wrote (107330)	8/8/2005 10:25:35 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

What I am arguing is that there is no particular country that does not commit atrocities during war. If you want to consider atrocities, for example, consider the more than three hundred men, women, children and babies that our American soldiers massacred at My Lai in Vietnam, after raping and torturing many of them! There is only one photo at this url, but it is the horrific classic one that everyone remembers, and it is probably enough: en.wikipedia.org So I find it irrelevant that there were many torturers and even cannibals among the Japanese. That is not any kind of justification for our nuclear bombs killing a quarter million of their civilians. You can feel guilty or not about Hiroshima--that's up to you. But I think the soul searching that some Americans are having now about those nuclear blasts is not just revisionism. There is relatively new declassified information about that period that historians are studying, and writing about. Time magazine did a cover story on this whole issue a couple of weeks ago, and it really does not seem that the reasons given at the time were the whole story at all. It seems more like America wanted to dominate the post-war period (why am I not surprised)? Is the death of a quarter of a million innocent civilians moral if that is really the agenda? Did you read this, incidentally? I think the book that the article was written about might be a very interesting read. There are all sorts of questions about whether the bombings were justified, or whether they really saved many American lives, or ended the war any sooner than it would have: Message 21580441