XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics
XPost: talk.politics.misc
From: okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com
"Edw" wrote in message
news:toSXb.8130$PY.478@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Steven Litvintchouk" wrote in message
> news:nCNXb.5604$W74.5022@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > Edw wrote:
> >
> > > "Gary DeWaay" wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1a98a53539385d569896e1@news.midco.net...
> > >
> > >>Edw's wisdom...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>You don't think context is relevant in a debate?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You must feel you win a lot of debates.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>No deal. You said context excuses action in wars. I say nothing
> > >
> > > excuses
> > >
> > >>>killing innocents.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Why didn't you just say you are against all wars from the beginning?
> > >>
> > >>It would have saved me a lot of typing.
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't say that. Are you trying to misunderstand everything?
> >
> > No military commander anywhere on earth has a clue as to how to wage a
> > major war against a modern industrialized nation without it resulting in
> > the deaths of at least some innocent civilians.
> >
> > If you think YOU know of a strategy as to how to wage major wars with
> > ZERO civilian casualties, then please cite it. If you know of any major
> > wars fought since 1914 that resulted in ZERO civilian casualties, please
> > cite those too.
> >
> > Otherwise, you have to accept that when you choose to go to war, you do
> > so with the full knowledge that innocents will inevitably suffer. You
> > do your best to reduce that suffering to minimum. (And American
> > investment in precision-guided munitions has done more than any other
> > military weapon to reduce civilian casualties.) But no one knows how to
> > reduce that suffering to zero.
>
>
> A smoke screen. The issue is about pursuing negotiations that were on
> offer. Not having pursued them, you cannot say they would have been
> fruitless. And yet that is the justification for dropping two WMDs on
> civilian populations.
> >
Okay let us try this one more time. Yes, one could argue that we may have
succeeeded in Japan surrendering through negoitiations. But the same
argument could be made that negotiations would not have suceeded. It is
only in hindsight that one knows which would have ended up with the best
results. Any leaader makes his decisions that are never if ever based on
perfect information. But you do the best you can with the information you
do have. Besides, a counter argument could be made that while you are
negotiating, more people are dying because you are still at war, and we were
bombing the hell out of Japan.
I have said this before, and I have first hand knowledge since I was in
Japan shortly after the end of the war and since my grandparents lived in
the outskirts of Hiroshima, I saw what one bomb did to that city. But once
again, let me ask a very simple question. If you were on the ground in
Japan, would you prefer to have bombers dropping their load over your head
day in and day out, or would you prefer to have one bomb do the job. On one
hand, you know they will be back, on the other hand, if you survive, you
know they will most likely not be coming back. Personally, I do not think I
would like to live in a town or city that is under constant bombardment, but
perhaps you are different. I might also add, that entire towns were leveled
by conventional bombs. My memory when we arrived at the Port City of
Yukosuka and drove to Tokyo on our way to the airbase, was an area totally
leveled by conventional bombs. A drive through that area would have shown
you what conventional bombs can do, because there was not a permanent
structure between the hills facing Tokyo Bay and the bay itself.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
