 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Nope, it was definitely a thread. My post on the subject, which includes why I think it was both political and necessary, is here: (URL)Honestly, it sounds like you were making a rather "might-makes-right" (...) The most devastating war in ALL (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Either is possible. (...) No, my argument is more of a "if you're at war, use the appropriate weapon for the job", as I tend to reject "might makes right" in what I hope is a pretty consistent way and welcome being called on it if I ever lean (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Ok, I looked. I can't find it. I tried various search strings on the off-topic.debate(1), read through 90% of the results (skimming the other 10% admittedly) and I can't find any place (where you partook) other than the thread starting around (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) (sorry, forgot the Sarcasm on and Sarcasm off warnings)... that is, unless you plan to *never* post about any of the topics you've posted about already. I guess I am *shocked* that you'd try to stifle discussion that way, Dan. But I can see (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yes indeed, very thoughtful of you. However rest assured I still have some questions for you which I will be posting soon. (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) True-- although mainly I think it would be evidence provided twofold-- I.E. "Here are before and after shots of this island, here's a videotape of us blowing it up, and here it is now. Go to the island and verify yourself if you don't believe (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) I said nothing about guns in specific. Nor does this address what I said: you can give up a freedom for security. Okay, this is what you have done: you can't carry a gun, but you feel more secure because of it. You'd rather have the security (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I'd question that part. Not too many years earlier a good chunk of the US populace believed we were being invaded by Mars. Even today, credulous lout believe that the moon landings were faked, so if we'd simply shown a film of our nuclear (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) I said it was a caricature in the message you replied to(!) :) (...) I would say "free", but try to talk me round if you want! (...) So you think I'm less free as I don't/can't have a gun, even though I would feel less free if I did have one? (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) No, the idea was that they'd invite other nations to send representatives to witness the event-- not that we couldn't have merely recorded the event anyway. At least such was my understanding. I don't remember if it was explicitly said, or (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) My point exactly, if not directly stated. (...) A bit garbled - I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Sorry. But I think I address what you are trying to say below. (...) No, it's not you culture. The people of Chicago often noted that (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) My comment was caricature. (...) I would say "free", but try to talk be round if you want! (...) They are freedoms to me... perhaps it is my culture. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Why was there no demo explosion in an uninhabited island to convince the Japanese of the power of the bomb? What would be lost? If it failed - nobody would know. If the real thing failed, the Japanese would have a bomb (or at least bits of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Mature democracies outlaw them. :-) (...) In my ideal there would be no charities. We can save that one for later. (...) Scotland - not really England - hmm London - Yes (...) GP on demand (walk-in clinic) Specialist in less than 1 month (I'm (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) It was interesting reading. Lots of work went into it. It failed to note that there was never a decision to drop one bomb, and then another decision to drop another (it was a decision to drop two bombs). It noted that the Japanese were looking (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Money is a form of power. You have more money, you have more power. I'm not talking about the United States, mind you, I'm talking about the world at large throughout history. I'll grant you it's pretty blatant here. (...) No, that's not (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) From what I heard from a US history teacher, the question was being considered as to whether or not to test on an uninhabited island. We were considering "demonstrating" on the island to other nations, but were worried that "What if the tests (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) And reform in this area is coming -- give it time. Even the two party system is slowly but surely under attack. Again, time will correct these issues. As far as the whole gun thing goes: Sorry to disappoint you but I believe that the ruling (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I think the evidence is against them being necessary to beat Japan (they were already beaten). Cynics will say that they provided a test for the new toy (I can't believe that). But I do wonder if they were deemed necessary simply to send the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) <snipped> That being said, it is reasonable to conclude that you have nothing new to contribute to this discussion and anyone interested in your opinions can check your previous posts. Thanks for pointing that out to us, I'm sure anyone (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
