OT:Letter to Southern Califonia newspaper that was not printed

[Doug Miller]

That person would be... youself, I'm afraid.

Obviously your mind is already made up, and there's no sense confusing you with anything so mundane as actual facts.

[CW]

He's a Brit. Why worry about it? They still think that they gave us this country. They also think they saved us during WW 2. There's no end to their delusions. I do believe that they invented revisionist history.

[todd]

The fact is, they were military targets. They were also, obviously, large population centers as well. The stated purpose of using the atomic bombs was to hasten an end to the war and avoid the losses on both sides that would have come with a presumed invasion of the Japanese main island. There's no way of knowing what would have actually taken place had the atomic bombs not been dropped.

And let's not delude ourselves into thinking that these were the only times that cities were targeted in war. According to Wikipedia, the total civilian deaths during WWII exceeeded 32 million.

todd

[John Emmons]

I wasn't "suggesting" anything, I was making an observation about hypocrisy. Something the the entire world needs to better examine. Like the hypocrisy of a nation built on immigration trying to blame immigrants for all the problems in society.

As for condemning horrendous acts, I'm all for it, let's all condemn all horrendous acts, those committed by our enemies and those committed by our allies.

I think you'll find that if you look at things objectively that pretty much every nation has from time to time committed some pretty atrocious acts against fellow humans, the U.S. isn't immune, nor are other so called civilised nations.

All I'm saying is that nobody's hands are clean. Sure some are dirtier than others, that's not really the point is it? Does it make you feel better if you can say that you committed fewer atrocities than did your enemy? Claiming the moral high ground when you aid and abet the killing of innocent civilians is a pretty tough act to try and pull off. That applies to all sides of all conflicts. And the sooner we realise that, the sooner the world might just be better off. Unless everyone is happy living a life of denial and rationalisation.

Which seems to be the case, sadly enough.

As for using civilians, what would you have them do? While not excusing their atrocious behaviour, they're outnumbered, outgunned, etc. They fight the people that they consider their enemies the only way they can, seems to me that there were some people here in what's known as the U.S. who wore civilian clothes, hid behind trees and walls to shoot down their enemies too. They did what they did to whom they did the only way they knew how. It's all wrong. To the islamic militants of the world, it's a fight for what they consider their souls, you don't have to agree with them to understand that.

John E.

[Kurt Ullman]

Of course that isn't what is happening. Nobody (okay few but the congenital idiots) are saying anything about those who are here legally and following the law. Also no talk about lessening quotas that let more people in than any other country.

I would have them not hide behind the skirts of women, children and non-combatant men.

[digitalmaster]

It depends on if you are talking about an appointed interim leader or a duly elected president.Who the British think the first president was means less to me than whether the cat has constipation or not.

[Dave Balderstone]

You're wrong. To them, it's a fight to take over the world and destroy other cultures and religions.

They don't want to be left alone by Israel, they want to destroy Israel and kill every living Jew.

They don't want to accomodate or be accomodated by the West, they want to destroy what we've built, our civilization, and replace it with what the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan.

[John Emmons]

Immigrants and immigration are becoming THE political item in the U.S. With little to no research or data to support their claims, anti-immigration zealots are trying desperately to control the issue, in order to win votes come November.

It's a lot like "gay marriage" or abortion rights, another effort to drum up the voters and try to get them to the polls, hoping that they'll elect another crop of neo-conservatives.

Obviously the entire nation isn't bashing immigrants, only those with an agenda. As for them being idiots, that's your word, not mine.

As for those in hiding, of course you'd like to them to be out and in the open, they're easier to kill that way. Don't be naive, they hide the way that they do in order to win. They're fighting for their very way of life, frankly, anyone who's surprised or shocked at the efforts that insurgents undertake to try and survive is at best naive, at worst, they might be related to those idiots you wrote about above.

I'm not excusing their behaviour, simply trying to put it into context. If it were my family being bombed and shot at, I imagine I might hide behind a few skirts in order to try and fight back as best I could too. As would just about anyone I imagine.

Is it really so hard to try and imagine what the other guy is thinking?

John E.

[John Emmons]

Like I said, they're fighting for their souls.

They want to destroy Israel and the west, we want to destroy them. Depending on where you live, one side is right.

The west wants the rest of the world to march in lock step with GW Bush's idea of freedom and democracy, based on freeing up as many of the earth's resources for use by the U.S. as possible while stopping others from having access to them.

The radical Islamists want a world that follows in lock step with their religious beliefs.

Nothing I've written contradicts any of that.

It's the context that seems to be lost, we in the west seem to feel that we have some sort of mandate to inflict our beliefs on others while condemning those who would do the same. The end result is the same, deaths of innocent people who want to be left alone to tend to their own.

I say lets all stop trying to tell the other folks what to do and see what happens, it's the only thing that hasn't been tried. Sooner or later, the people are gonna decide to stop killing one another for politicians. Til then, we're all complicit in this nonsense.

John E.

[Fly-by-Night CC]

You don't accept any of the arguments that we were showing our might to Stalin? Japan would have starved itself in short order without an invasion - an island nation with little natural resources for making war materials. They were running out of time once the allies recaptured most of the South Pacific, cut off major supply lines and knocking at their door.

Perhaps one can justify and accept the circumstances leading up to the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, do we have as much standing to defend the second? Given that much of the communications infrastructure of Japan was in tatters, plus lacking modern methods of email, cell phones, satellites, etc - waiting merely 3 days before dropping on Nagasaki may have been rushed, unjustified and more illustrative of sending the Russians a message. They certainly were not our favorite allies and much distrusted. What if we had waited a full week? Did the Japanese submit a formal declaration that they intended to fight on no matter what we had done to Hiroshima?

[Mark & Juanita]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:40:03 GMT, "John Emmons" wrote:

... and most civilized nations when they have done so have acted to redress those ills.

No, what seems to be the case is some people will use the "moral equivalency" argument to justify darn near anything, no matter how horrendous or atrocious the act. To the point that "But *we* made them go for hours without sleep", or "*we* made them wear women's panties on their heads" is now considered rationalization and justification for someone taking another hostage, then slicing off their heads in front of a video camera. The moral equivalency adherents are quick to indicate that those acts of "torture" are sufficient provocation for the real torture of having one's throat cut.

OK, let's see. The terrorists launch suicide bombers into Israel, launch rockets from civilian homes in Lebanon into Israel to kill civilians (no military targets seem to be deliberately targeted). During the recent conflict, the only real military objectives attacked seems to have been the skirmish and kidnapping of several Israelli soldiers. ... and this helps the terrorist's quest for freedom, how?

During the recent activities, Israel places tanks and troops on Lebanon's border and bombs locations of terrorist rocket emplacements and storage. The terrorists respond by firing rockets on civilians in Israel. Israel enters Lebanon with tanks and troops, targeting terrorists who don't wear uniforms and who deliberately place their weapons in and around civilians and UN emplacements. The terrorists respond by launching rockets at civilians in Israel. The Israelis destroy said emplacements and rocket launch sites, unfortunately because the terrorists have deliberately placed them at civilian locations (and because terrorists don't wear uniforms), civilians are accidentally killed. The world condemns Israel for killing civilians. Meanwhile, the terrorists launch more missiles into Israel targeting civilians.

The point of the above paragraph? There are two points (and a half). First, the "moral equivalence" adherents will raise the cry that the terrorists are justified in what they are doing because they are outgunned and can't really defeat the Israeli army (who, by the way would *not* be firing at the terrorists if the terrorists weren't shooting at Israel). Again the question, how does attacking civilians in Israel help the terrorists in their search for freedom? Second point, this is a really stupid strategic maneuver -- why are the terrorists shooting at civilians

10's of miles into Israel and complaining about being overrun by the Israelli army? Why aren't they firing those rockets at the Israeli army? Wouldn't that be more logical? At a minimum, it would allow them to at least slow down the advancing troops and get their civilians out of harm's way if that was really their concern. The half a point? Why is it that the world is outraged at Israel when civilians are accidentally killed after they, or their nominal government allowed weapons caches and launch areas to be set up in civlian areas, around civilians, and manned by non-uniformed terrorists who look like civilians? Why isn't the ire directed at the government of that country for the failing to protect its citizens, at the citizens for allowing this to happen, and at the UN for failing to enforce its resolutions?

Now, the final point. What the @#$% are you talking about when you go on with the moral equivalence argument that these people are just fighting for their freedom? These people have avowed that their idea of freedom is: a) Israel is wiped off the map, b) their desired home country becomes an Islamo-fascist Shariah law paradise in which their women are considered chattel and infidels and dissidents have their arms or heads lopped off. ... and this is somehow the moral equivalent of a group of people who banded together to throw off an oppressive government that was yoking them with ever-increasing taxes, forcing them to quarter troops in their homes, and other oppressive regulations. Their rebellion was in order to form a country in which the citizens were allowed to be the best they can be and to live their own lives in freedom to worship as they please and to express their opinions about the world no matter how absurd. As far as your remark regarding people hiding behind trees and shooting at others -- there goes your moral equivalency silliness again, just because the Americans didn't buy into the European model for warfare in which two opposing groups of armed personnel marched at one another until they met and then slaughtered one another, they were still engaging military tactical and strategic targets. To be equivalent to your current "freedom fighters", they would have had to go to England and start shooting civlians in London while the British troops were attacking military posts in the colonies.

... and to call that "hypocritical" is well, silly.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Mark & Juanita]

and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

... and if they weren't hiding behind women's skirts and childrens' playpens, the women and children wouldn't be getting shot at and killed would they? What is so hard to understand about the fact that the people who should be condemned are those using women and children as shields?

I'm trying to imagine *if* the other guy is thinking when posing arguments as superficial as the above.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[bigjim]

[bigjim]

[Mark & Juanita]

OK, where do *you* live?

Again, the above "moral equivalency" viewpoint just borders on the absurd. "we want to destroy them?" No, we want to prevent them from destroying us; our's is a "live and let live" philosophy, it's when others do impolite things like using airplanes as missiles to bring down skyscrapers or send their own children into other countries with bombs strapped to themselves to kill civlians that we tend to get a bit riled.

"It's all Bush's fault" I'm frankly growing somewhat tired of that silly old saw. IIRC, Bush wasn't in office when the World Trade Center was first bombed, nor when the USS Cole was attacked, nor when the Kobar towers came down. Dang! Those radicals were prescient, weren't they? ... and where in the world has anyone *ever* said that the US wants to prevent others from using earth's resources (except, of course for those in the US environmental movement who would just as soon have all of us living in mud huts and living as subsistence farmers while the bulk of the US was set aside as some western Serengeti)?

OK, so, which side are you on? You (or your descendants) don't get to be neutral in this. If the policies you advocate result in a radical Islamic middle-east, a radical Islamic Europe, and encroachment of radical Islam into the US and other western countries, you are going to have to take a stand -- neutrality will be counted by the radical Islamists as the equivalent of an infidel.

You know, I just don't see that "inflict our beliefs on others" in western culture, at least not since the Inquisition was shown to be such a bad idea. Share our beliefs, yes --- inflict them, no, unless by that you mean by that stopping others from attacking and killing innocents in other countries is somehow inflicting our beliefs on others. or maybe you are espousing the opinion that killing innocent civilians is a bad thing is simply a cultural affectation of our own culture and we should not impose that on more blood-thirsty cultures who view inflicting such punishment on others as perfectly legitimate.

hmmm, seems that's been tried in the middle-east and other places numerous times. Hasn't generally worked out too well. That bit of nastiness that took place in the early 40's was a direct result of not trying to tell a certain couple of European dictators what to do. Seems that every time Israel has attempted to take a live and let live policy, even to the point of giving up land for peace, the land given up winds up being used to stage new attacks on Israel. Leaving Afghanastan alone with the Taliban, well, that didn't turn out too well either.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[todd]

My point is that I don't know what would have happened. Maybe a million people would have starved to death if we just blockaded the island. Would that have been better?

Again, neither of us knows what would have happened had we waited a week. A lot of people would say that the Japanese started the "hot" war with us, and we finished it in the manner of our choosing. The fact that we had been engaged in a bloody war with Japan for well over 3 years probably didn't leave a lot good will toward the enemy at the time. It wouldn't even surprise me to learn that with the thinking of the time, the fact was that we had two nukes to drop and we were going to drop them both. As an aside, Kyoto was the choice of many as the primary target for the first bomb. The fact that Secretary of War Henry Stimson had spent his honeymoon there some time before and had an appreciation for the city is probably the only thing that saved it.

todd

[Hedley]

sniff.... sniff.... do I smell a Troll?

[Saudade]

Save your breath and your flames.

[Hedley]

One minor point, and I hate that it contradicts an otherwise impressive argument...

Put yourself in the uptight Brit's shoes circa the 1770's... after decades of fighting "civilized" war in which you face your opponent openly on the battlefield, suddenly you are faced with a new kind of war. The opponent hides from your formations and uses the barbaric strategies of guerilla warfare to enable his smaller forces to have a chance. I'm sure they were appalled.

The BIG difference these days, it seems, is that any morality has gone out of it. The thing of it is, the Americans didn't involve civilians as shields and didn't target civilians as a rule, but they did take some of the "honor" out of war - if war can actually have it. I speak of the "honor" defined by the prevailing power of the time - the Brtis. They pretty much defined warfare at the time.

The animals we are dealing with in the middle east are further up against the wall than pre-Revolutionary War Americans ever were. They are desperate, starving, uneducated, and totally without hope. And their leaders fill these starving ingorants with a perverted religious fervor to make them do stupid things.

I hope I live to see the day when oil is no longer important. The middle east will make North Africa look like the land of plenty and the Islamists can go back to what they want to do.

And no one will give a rat's ass.

[Al Moran]

That's exactly why we should nuke their asses and get it over with.