Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:17:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
489 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > I haven't yet read the site (I dunno if I will-- depends I guess), but it
> > really leads me to wonder whether anyone out there actually *DOES* believe
> > it was "necessary"?
>
> No time to dig into this in depth but I should point out that I have, in
> this very group, already taken the stance that *both* bombings were 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 here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13613
And oddly enough, I also came across a quote in that thread stating AGAIN
that you actually had discussed it within this forum:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13617
"This exact debate has been held here before, nothing has changed my view"
So I can only assume that in fact you meant that your viewpoint had never
actually been expressed here (lugnet.off-topic.debate) prior to, oh, about
October 8th, 2001 (depending on your time zone), and that you meant that you
were thoroughly convinced by a debate held by others in this forum. Or
perhaps I didn't search hard enough-- or you were just mistaken.
Honestly, it sounds like you were making a rather "might-makes-right"
argument when it all boiled down to it-- but again, maybe I'm mistaken. At
any rate, I'm still not the most informed person on WWII, but I disagree
with your position. Specifically:
> > > I'll discuss that if you like, but not whether using nukes in WW II was
> > > terrorism. It wasn't. (I again say shame on you for even suggesting it
> > > was).
And also:
> I have, in this very group, already taken the stance that *both* bombings
> were necessary.
Unless of course:
- in the former case, you define terrorism quite differently than I (or
define the motive of the US/"the terrorists" differently than I).
- in the latter case, you define the ends of "necessary" to be something
rather atrociously unlike anything I would have deemed as the ends.
DaveE
(1) Specifically:
+Pieniazek +Hiroshima
+Pieniazek +Nagasaki
+Pieniazek +atomic
+Pieniazek +empire
+Pieniazek +japan
+Pieniazek +WWII
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) No time to dig into this in depth but I should point out that I have, in this very group, already taken the stance that *both* bombings were necessary. I spent a little time at that site late last nite (early this morning, actually). The (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
