Text 5547, 78 rader
Skriven 2004-12-01 16:35:00 av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av FRANK SCHEIDT
Ärende: Breaking News!        1/2
=================================
Hello Frank,

>JH>Lee doesn't give a damn about war crimes in WWII, that's old news.

>LL>All who committed war crimes should be brought to justice, regardless
>LL>of the war in which those war crimes were committed.

>JH>He is only interested in anything that will put the US in a bad light
>JH>TODAY.

>LL>American soldiers who commit war crimes dishonor America.  As such,
>LL>it is those American soldiers who put "the US in a bad light TODAY."

>FS>It took place sixty years ago, true, but OTOH that *was* a war
>FS>crime on a massive scale.  The defensive shooting by that Marine
>FS>was not a crime of any sort.

>JH>Have to disagree with you on Dresden.  We did not start the practice of
>JH>war on an enemy's civilian population.  The Germans and Japanese are bo
>JH>guilty of that.  Just as we were accused of unrestricted submarine warf
>JH>when it was the German U-boat wolf packs that perfected that little twi
>JH>were forced into a position of total warfare because it was the only wa
>JH>break the will of the German people to support their government, and ju
>JH>with the atom bomb, it ultimately cost FEWER lives lost than would have
>JH>occurred otherwise.

>LL>The Allied bombing of Dresden killed more innocent civilians than
>LL>those killed by atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  That
>LL>counts as one heck of a war crime.  Actually three, given that the
>LL>atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes.

>FS>Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.

>LL>Japan was ready and willing to surrender weeks before we nuked
>LL>Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  However, we were not willing to accept
>LL>anything less than an unconditional surrender.  Knowing an
>LL>unconditional surrender would mean their deaths, Japanese military
>LL>leaders could not accept a surrender on those terms.

FS>Japan was *not* willing to surrender prior to our use of the
FS>atomic bomb.

Yes it was.  But only conditionally.

FS>Records uncovered after their surrender made it
FS>clear that the military wanted to fight to the death and the
FS>Emperor himself was only slightly ambiguous about that goal.
FS>Invasion of Honshu would have resulted in a blood bath!

Records show that the Japanese leadership wanted to surrender.
But only conditionally.  After the atomic bombs were dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese leadership had no choice
but to surrender unconditionally.

>FS>Destroying those two cities, though it cost many thousands of Jap
>FS>lives, was well worth it since it saved many *hundreds* of
>FS>thousands of lives, both Jap and American.  ... and *best* of all
>FS>-- it kept *me* out of the South Pacific!

>LL>Why was it more important to have a handful of Japanese military
>LL>leaders executed rather than murdering over a hundred thousand
>LL>innocent Japanese civilians?

FS>Huh?  Kindly rephrase that ... I don't follow it ...

Had Japan surrendered before we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, there would have been no bloodbath.  However, many
thousands of Japanese lives would have been spared.  However, the
United States insisted that Japan surrender unconditionally, rather
than conditionally.  As a result, many thousands of Japanese lost
their lives, needlessly.  Just so the United States could have a
handful of Japanese military leaders executed.

>>> Continued to next message

 * SLMR 2.1a * We all live in a yellow subroutine.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)