| First Amendment |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Bahman ® 11/15/2002, 00:39:50 Author Profile Mail author |
Finally it happened. The following paragaraph from an article in today's LA Times was "the straw that broke the camel's back!" ""They keep saying they don't have weapons of mass destruction, which nobody believes," Kofi Annan said Wednesday in Washington. "If you have no weapons of mass destruction, why have you kept the inspectors out for four years?"" We've been hearing this argument a lot recently, and I remember hearing it a lot in famous cases like when the White House (from Clinton and before to Dick Cheny) is reluctant to submit information to Congress and so on. I am not defending nobody here! But whatever happened to the first amednment and the philosophy behind it? When an accused person takes the first, are they going to tell him, what are you trying to hide? Someone please shed some light on this. The camel's back is broke! |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Correction: Fifth, Not First! Re: First Amendment -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/15/2002, 04:57:07
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Fifth Amendment Re: First Amendment -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
11/15/2002, 07:14:20
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Good question but . . . Re: Re: Fifth Amendment -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/15/2002, 08:31:57
Author Profile Mail author
1) The reference to Iraq was an excuse for me (the last straw?) to bring the issue up. And as I said, we have seen a lot of famous (infamous) cases in the US.
2) Even when we are dealing with foreigners and foreign powers, I think the philosophy still should apply. (I am not talking legality here.) Let me play devil's advocate here and answer for Saddam (good heavens!): There are other reasons I don't want inspectors in my country. Our sovereignity is at stake, there will be spies among the inspectors (this reportedly happened in the 90's inspections), etc. etc. On top of that why do we have to be bullied by the "great satan?!" There!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I'm no fan... Re: Good question but . . . -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
11/15/2002, 09:43:44
Author Profile Mail author
I just don't think "taking the fifth" is going to fly as an argument against what the last remaining super-power seems determined to do. I'm sure you've heard of "might makes right".
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Different approach Re: I'm no fan... -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/15/2002, 10:13:10
Author Profile Mail author
Why do people insinuate or directly imply that if someone takes the fifth amendment is hiding something and presumably guilty? I am not talking legality here because I assume the courts won't make such a presumption.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Different approach Re: Different approach -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
11/15/2002, 10:38:07
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Sarcasm acknowledged! Re: Re: Different approach -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/15/2002, 11:16:05
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
First Amendment sub topic link Re: First Amendment -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
11/15/2002, 08:02:28
Author Profile Mail author
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3924Links for all amendments.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxi.html
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: First Amendment Re: First Amendment -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
11/15/2002, 10:28:37
Author Profile Mail author
Who else doesn't allow "inspectors" in? USA! And, we have enough clout to keep the UN from ever making such inspections "mandatory" for us. Great.
Who has made the worst use of WMD, meaning, killed the most civilians? USA (Japan)!
Who is developing, at the present moment, systems designed to intercept WMD, effectively attempting to make them the only power that can use WMD without repercussion? USA!
Oh, and don't forget, Israel has lots of WMD, too.
Now, personally, I'm no fan of Saddam, nor do I want him to use WMD on anyone. If inspections can stop that, I support them. I sincerely doubt that war will do anything but encourage (perhaps "force") him to use them. But the US isn't exactly the shining example of careful use of WMD.
I hate the abbreviation WMD--but it is shorter.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Iraq Re: Re: First Amendment -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/15/2002, 11:13:56
Author Profile Mail author
As for the first part of your post: Do you really honestly believe that you could put Saddam at the same level, danger-wise, as US, Japan, Israel, etc.???
"Now, personally, I'm no fan of Saddam, nor do I want him to use WMD on anyone. If inspections can stop that, I support them. I sincerely doubt that war will do anything but encourage (perhaps "force") him to use them."
I am 101% with you! And I am also very optimistic that the whole problem will end with inspections. Cross your fingers!
"But the US isn't exactly the shining example of careful use of WMD."
Can you elaborate on what you mean? Examples?
BTW, why don't you like WMD? It sounds OK to me.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Re: Iraq -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
11/15/2002, 16:05:27
Author Profile Mail author
>> the same level, danger-wise, as US, Japan, Israel, etc.???"(I wasn't comparing Iraq to Japan. I was comparing what the US did IN Japan to what Saddam has done).
No, certainly not. Saddam is *far* less dangerous than the United States. He has nowhere near that power that we have, and risks the wrath of much of the world if he acts rashly. The United States, on the other hand, has the ability to take out an entire government simply because that government won't "turn over" a suspect of terrorism--and most importantly, get away with it.
I don't accept the argument that it was good "for the citizens," because if that were so important, we would have acted years ago. We acted on our own agenda: get Bin Laden. Now, it may have been a good choice overall for the people of Afghanistan, but the fact remains: we didn't like a country's policies, so we took them out (although they personally had never attacked us). Yet we leave Cuba alone, showing how deep our regard for oppressed peoples goes. A country that can do this w/o being held accountable is FAR more dangerous than one like Iraq that is carefully watched by half the world.
>> "Can you elaborate on what you mean? Examples?"
Sure.
Our use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is, to date, the most devestating use of nuclear weapons ever recorded (about 240,000 civilians killed).
See here for an article about the 10k-75k cases of thyroid cancer resulting from nuclear tests in Nevada.
See here for a history of the inhabitants of the Bikini Atoll, which details, among other things, the decision of the military to detonate a 15 megaton bomb on the island of Bikini Atoll (the inhabitants had been moved to a neighboring island), in spite of the following (taken from the linked page):
Indeed, according to a Defense Nuclear Agency report on the Bravo blast, the weather briefing the day before the detonation stated that there would be "no significant fallout...for the populated Marshalls." The briefing at 6 p.m., however, stated that "the predicted winds were less favorable; nevertheless, the decision to shoot was reaffirmed, but with another review of the winds scheduled for midnight." The midnight briefing "indicated less favorable winds at 10,000 to 25,000-foot levels." Winds at 20,000 feet "were headed for Rongelap to the east," and "it was recognized that both Bikini and Eneman islands would probably be contaminated."
The result was severe radiation for many inhabitants of Rongelap Atoll, resulting in hair loss, vomiting, and in later years, fatal tumors.
Anthrax: the US Army develops weapons-grade Anthrax, and probably other bioagents, such as smallpox. Why? Is there any good reason? It's sickening to me. When the US first developed anthrax at Iowa State (~1950s), it was sold all over the world. In fact, Iraq purchased anthrax from us in the 1980s (see here).
Agent Orange was used by the Army in Vietnam to kill crops of the enemy (and foliage used for hiding). Even more disappointing is that the military knew of the adverse effects on both Americans and Vietnamese. Dr. James Clary (Air Force scientist in Vietnam) said:
"When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the `military' formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the `civilian' version, due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the `enemy,' none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide. And, if we had, we would have expected our own government to give assistance to veterans so contaminated."
Read more about Agent Orange, the coverups, and everything else here.
The US both supplied and funded Iraq in the 1980-1988 war against Iran, providing them with technology to produce mustard and nerve gas, which was later used to kill or wound ~50,000 Iranians (I wish I could give a more accurate report of this, but here is an example).
I could go on. But these are some excellent examples: the US does not have the moral high ground when it comes to WMD. We have used them more than any other nation, we continue to develop them, and we allow no such "inspections" of what we are doing with them to be conducted here as we forced Iraq to accept.
I want all WMD gone--including ours! I don't see any attempt by the US to get rid of theirs--just those of potential threats. Why can't the whole world agree to have "weapons inspections" and get rid of all the nukes? It may be unreasonable to want such a thing, but the US is not such a great nation that we can be trusted more than anyone else. Indeed, we are still the nation that has made the biggest and worst use of WMD.
> BTW, why don't you like WMD? It sounds OK to me.
I don't like it because it is too general, and is used as a catch phrase w/o getting at the real issues. I prefer to refer to the specific weapon in question, since I don't think they can easily be compared. But for the purposes of this situation (comparing use of WMD), it is easier to use the phrase.
By the way, before we backed out of the BCW treaty, we also refused to allow inspections into certain buildings because of "national security." Sound familiar?
-Dan
PS fixed typos
Update--
The denial of turning a blind eye to the mustard gas attacks:
http://www.metimes.com/2K2/issue2002-34/reg/us_denies_aiding.htm
Modified by nofaith at Sat, Nov 16, 2002, 15:01:00
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thanks for your time Re: Re: Iraq -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/16/2002, 01:04:55
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Re: Re: Iraq -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
11/17/2002, 05:32:39
Author Profile Mail author
You say: " Saddam is *far* less dangerous than the United states". Really? Are you saying that the more destructive power a country has, the more dangerous it is. These are not the same thing. Apples and oranges to me.
Actually, the less historical moral responsibility a country has shown, the more dangerous it is. Wild cards and renegades of the world are the "big" threat to world peace. A thug like Saddam who fancies himself a 21st century "Saladin" who is going to save the middle east from the western "infidels" could easily be the spark to set off that powder keg.I would suggest you brush up on your world history. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were executed only after long and agonizing debates over what the human cost would be if we invaded the main islands of Japan.
The official estimates were between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people would be killed, given the Japanese determination to fight to the very end.
A very difficult decision at best. The lesser of two evils. They had no choice as far as I can see. As terrible as it was, it saved thousands of lives. No one can honestly refute this fact. It was a humanitarian decision of high order.I am not saying that we have always held the moral high ground in everything we have engaged in, but historically the United States has done more to help more countries and people in need from a humanitarian standpoint than any other country in history. Of course we are not perfect and we do make mistakes.
And why do people like yourself keep bringing up Cuba as an example of our picking and choosing of people to free from their political bondage and chains? I'll tell you why. Again you are not up on your history.
I was around in October of 1962 during the Cuban missle crisis and know first hand how close the world came to nuclear holocaust.
We were within hours of complete destruction of everything when Nikita Kruschev decided to back down. We made a very important and critical deal with the Soviet Union at that time.
The deal was that they would remove the missles from Cuba and we would not ever invade Cuba. Our removing missles from Turkey was also agreed upon, however it was mainly a secondary concession for Nikita's political standing at home.So, you see, if not for that commitment, we very probably would have been in Cuba long before now. No missles, no threat. We are just standing by our agreement, at least in this case.
I am well aware of the evils of such things as the WMD that you cover in your post and agree that it would be a better world without them. I have been through all the numbers, historical effects and horrible misery that they have inflicted in the years past.
We live in a very complicated world and I sometimes feel the frustration as much as anyone. We have a lot of Genies that are out of the bottle and out they will stay, like it or not.
Again, I want to reiterate that having power and being dangerous are definately not necessarily "bed partners". With power comes responsibility and without intelligent and moral use of that power, then you are "dangerous".
With all due respect;
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Re: Re: Iraq -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
11/17/2002, 06:09:02
Author Profile Mail author
> the more dangerous it is.No.
> Actually, the less historical moral responsibility a country
> has shown, the more dangerous it is.I don't agree with this 100%. However, I don't consider that the US has shown great moral responsibility. I think a combination of the two, power and ethics, are more accurate than either alone.
> deal was that they would remove the missles from Cuba and we
> would not ever invade CubaI am aware of the Cuban missile crisis. However, I believe the USSR is no longer as concerned with the agreement we made with them. In any case, perhaps a better example would be Saudi Arabia, which is apparently an "ally" of ours.
> Again, I want to reiterate that having power and being
> dangerous are definately not necessarily "bed partners".I agree. You don't have to be evil to be dangerous, though. For example, I think invading Iraq is a foolish move that would trigger undesireable effects. By being brazen enough to do things like that, the US becomes very dangerous--even if it is working with a "moral" agenda.
> The official estimates were between 500,000 and 1,000,000
> people would be killed, given the Japanese determination to
> fight to the very end.See here for a view similar to mine.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Re: Re: Iraq -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
11/17/2002, 22:09:48
Author Profile Mail author
Cuba: I agree that Russia is no longer preoccupied with the deal we made in 1962. I do believe, however, that even though the cold war is over and Russia and the U.S. are now strange bedfellows, I doubt very much that they would let it go unnoticed if we were to, in fact, take Cuba. They would certainly try and use it to their advantage somehow. Besides, without the missles, cuba has been no more than a thorn in our side, politically. The only threat Cuba is for us is a constant affront to our national pride. However the stigma that would arise from our invading a defensless island nation 90 miles from us to liberate "repressed" peoples would certainly not do our "moral" standing in the world (at least in the western industrial nations) any good in the least. Can we label a people with almost a 100% literacy rate, repressed? Cuba is simply not high on the list, but on the list it is.
Saudi Arabia: Again, strange bed fellows. The reason, in my opinion is Oil...Oil...Oil. That's all.
The vast oil fields of the whole middle east and all of it's immense production were engineered, financed and implemented by, for the most part, the U.S. and Great Britain to feed and insure that the immense western appetite for this "black gold" would be satisfied for many years to come. In reality, perhaps they should actually belong to us anyway. Would we be morally justified in going in and just claiming what we built in the first place?
I understand that the Saudis do share their tremendous oil wealth somewhat with their citizens to the point that poverty and want are almost nonexistant as compared to some repressed poverty embellished peoples and areas in the U.S. and elsewhere. In a way, kind of similar to the state of Alaska giving a percentage of their oil income to Alaskans every year. Welfare or just sharing?Thank you for the link on the numbers considered by Truman and others down through the years regarding the effects of dropping the "big ones" on Japan. Very interesting. The pros and cons of the human impact of these events will be debated for years, we both know. In the long run of human history, however, it might eventually become a blessing in diguise as "the" hard lesson learned for all mankind as to what is totally unacceptable behaviour by everyone on earth as a means of destruction or settling disputes.
A personal note if I may: I was a boy of 5 in 1945. My father was in the Military in the Pacific and his unit was among those that were destined to invade Japan. He had fought his way all the way from Tarawa to Okinawa. Had he been involved in the invasion, the odds I'm told, were against him ever coming home and that I would ever seem him again. Is it selfish of me to now inwardly justify killing 240,000 people to help insure that I would enjoy the life that I did with my father for many many years. I still remember the thrill of the day he came home. He never talked about the war.
It is difficult for people, sometimes, not to let personal feelings well up and influence their thoughts and feelings on such grave matters.
As far as Iraq and Saddam are concerned, I am willing to use whatever means necessary to insure that this loose cannon has no WMD. If the UN inspectors can accomplish this without bloodshed, all the better. I am very doubtful. With is record of cheat and deceit and his uncanny ability as a survivor, however, I am very fearful of what he is capable of.
With respect;
Terry
Modified by TLC at Mon, Nov 18, 2002, 01:43:53
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Iraq Re: Re: Iraq -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
11/18/2002, 08:56:40
Author Profile Mail author
I basically agree with your views on Saudi Arabia (oil is the key). I think it is an example of how the US rarely acts on a moral agenda, except when it aligns itself with more critical agendas (e.g., the oppressed people of Afghanistan become *very* important when we suddenly want Bin Laden, or the fact that Saddam gassed "his own people" becomes an issue only after he attacks Kuwait). The US has supported and will continue to support despicable regimes, as long as they do what the US wants. When they don't, all the terrible things they have done in the past (with the US looking the other way) will suddenly be mentioned to show how terrible they are. It is feasible that some of the less humane actions of Israel will be turned against them, when (and if) Israel no longer does what we want them to do. Certainly, the same is possible (and more likely) for Saudi Arabia.
As for Cuba, I question whether Russia is in any position to question our actions, as they currently need our aid desperately.
I sympathize with the possibility that your father could have died if the invasion had taken place. We will never know for sure if the invasion would have been necessary, because we never started on that path--we took another, quicker route. I can only say that war is terrible, and any lives lost in Japan would have been grieved. I understand how it is easier for us to justify the atrocities in Japan, because it saved so many of us from pain--in some ways, I too want to justify our actions.
Please don't take this as a direct comparison, but in Germany (WWII), there were thousands who were struggling to resolve feelings of love for their motherland, and horror at what it had become. Sometimes I feel this way about the US (to a much lesser extent, I expect). I love much about this place, and the opportunities it has given me. I can't imagine that so much would be ours if we weren't the most powerful nation in the world. I realize that we have to step on others sometimes to maintain that status. But it is far from my ideals of what a good nation should be. Was it necessary to kill Japanese civilians? I know that it wasn't. Was it the best decision? We will never know. Was it "the" hard lesson? I hope it was, and that it was learned well by everyone.
Iraq/Saddam: I would like to get rid of Saddam's WMD as soon as possible. But I want the same for the US as well. I personally believe his WMD are of no danger to the US (until we attack, anyway), although they may be to other nations around him. Perhaps we should stop him for the benefit of all other nations, and perhaps we are; but, I believe the "oil, oil, oil" rationale is a much more likely motive for this action.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Japan Re: Re: Iraq -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
11/23/2002, 01:11:58
Author Profile Mail author
Terry
Modified by TLC at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 06:28:35
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Japan Re: Japan -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
11/23/2002, 07:00:18
Author Profile Mail author
Let's be clear about what happened, though. The Japanese did not refuse to surrender, and it was not against their belief to surrender, as is commonly taught. However, they did refuse to accept the Potsdam Declaration, which required an unconditional surrender. Part of that declaration was that the Emperor would lose his throne, which did go against their beliefs (they considered him like deity).
I'm not saying the Potsdam Declaration wasn't merited, of course (Japan clearly wasn't in a position to argue, either). So perhaps they brought it on themselves. An interesting chronology of the surrender can be found here. Notice that those who really wanted war did not change their minds with the bombings.
> millions of idealistic fanatics willing to fight to the
> death, would they still have been considered as innocent
> civilians?Definitely not. But even if that had been their intention, at the time they were killed, they had not done such a thing. You can't justify an action based on what someone might have done. Hirohito wanted to surrender, but was afraid of how the military would react (rightly, it turned out). So I doubt your scenario would have occurred, even w/o nuclear bombs.
On the bright side, Japan has flourished since the nuclear bombings forced democracy on them. In that sense, it was a good thing, I suppose.
> This to me was the only factor in deciding to finally "end it
> decisivly".You might be right. But ironically, the one condition we refused to accept for surrender (the emperor) was granted anyway after dropping the bombs. If we had offered this originally, we might not have had to drop them...who knows?
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Japan Re: Re: Japan -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
11/23/2002, 08:56:59
Author Profile Mail author
You say: "You can't justify an action on what someone might have done." Can we apply the same reasoning today after the advent of nuclear weapons? The ones we have today would make "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" seem like firecrackers. Very frightening!! Is it better to be safe than sorry?
This makes it almost impossible to deal with moral concepts rationally, when so much is at stake. Iraq comes to mind. I certainly don't feel comfortable with the likes of India or Pakistan having them either. In my judgement, the only countries to have nuclear weapons, should be the 5 top countries in the United Nations Security Council. All others should be forced to surrender them and never be allowed to have them. This might make me feel a lot more secure as their name implies.
You also say: "On the bright side, Japan has flourished since the nuclear bombings forced democracy on them. In that sense, it was a good thing I suppose."
Historically, nations that lose in a war with the U.S. have always prospered. In this sense it would make sense for a country to pick on the U.S. and lose. Almost a sound business investment in a way.
Do you remember the movie " The Little Mouse That Roared" with Peter Sellers. The little make believe country of "Slovinia" that attacked the U.S. with no more than a rowboat and immediately surrendered to the first American they saw. A great tongue in cheek version of this very concept. I saw this film as a young man years ago, but only in later years has it dawned on me, the message it was conveying.Thanks again;
Terry
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Japan Re: Re: Japan -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
11/23/2002, 09:58:40
Author Profile Mail author
> the U.S. and lose.There is something to be said for this. To the extent that it is true, it is a bit ridiculous.
> Can we apply the same reasoning today after the advent of
> nuclear weapons?I don't know, honestly. Preemptive action, in some ways, seems justified if you will be dead after the first blow. This is the unfortunate side effect of such powerful weapons. Of course, there are few that would do such a thing, because they would see the action reciprocated almost immediately. Unfortunately, some religious fanatics (9/11) have no regard for their own life. This makes it very hard to know what to do. I wish nuclear weapons could be eliminated, but there doesn't seem to be a way to stop everyone from acquiring them, so holding onto a few does seem judicious, I suppose.
I remind you that Japan did not have nuclear weapons, so we were not in such a dilemma at the end of WWII. Waiting a few days would not have been unreasonably dangerous. On the other hand, if you believe the theories that it was done to cow the Russians, sooner was better.
> only countries to have nuclear weapons, should be the 5 top
> countries in the United Nations Security CouncilThis seems better in theory than what we have today. But I submit that none of the top 5, not even the US, can be trusted completely with such power. All governments corrupt, and ours is immeasurably corrupted (and worsening). All governments fall, and ours is headed that way. Neither of these variables (fallen governments, corrupt leaders), combined with nuclear weapons is a good thing (look at what happend to Russia's nukes, for example). I know that it doesn't make sense to get rid of all our nuclear weapons immediately, but even limiting them to the top 5 doesn't seem totally safe. It also will just infuriate certain countries that we don't allow them to have something we do, which could be a bad thing.
Anyway, some things to think about.
-Dan
PS I'm not as informed on the subject as you seem to think (if you were serious). However, I have found that what I was taught in school and by my extremely conservative parents has been partially inaccurate, or incomplete. Regardless of what is true, I would have liked to hear more than one opinion, and many US citizens seem to feel that the bombing was the smartest thing to do. While it could be true in the long run, I feel it is patriotism talking more than logic. For me, it is hard to accept that is was the only (or even the "best") option. Just for example, both objectives (cowing the Russians, and convincing the Japanese to surrender) might have been accomplished by detonating the bomb(s) in less or non-populated areas. But perhaps that would have failed, and a bomb would have been lost. Hard to say.
Modified by nofaith at Sat, Nov 23, 2002, 09:59:47
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Japan Re: Re: Japan -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
11/23/2002, 20:49:15
Author Profile Mail author
For the most part, hind sight IS 20-20. Sometimes I think that the memory span of the human race is not much longer than that of a Trout. (studies show this to be approximately 15 minutes)
Best regards;
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
