Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:03:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
495 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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
It's pretty recent that this topic came up, I'll find you the thread start.
> Or
> perhaps I didn't search hard enough-- or you were just mistaken.
Either is possible.
> 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.
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 on that
particular statement to support anything.
> 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).
OK, what in that do you disagree with, specifically? I would say that if it
can be demonstrated that if any particular weapon is the most effective and
appropriate weapon under valid reasoning based on the facts available at the
time, using it in a war that pits good against evil is not terrorism.
Would you agree with that premise? That reduces the argument a bit. It also
reduces the scope of the argument if you disagree with the premise.
> 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.
I'm not sure I agree that the above follows from what I said that precedes it.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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?
|
| (...) The use of a 767 on Sep 11 was probably deemed effective and appropriate by the perpetrators - with a little investment in pilot training, and without the need to carry into the country any explosives or risk discovery by building their own, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Two parts then-- "war" and "appropriate". I think whether we were at war or not in this particular example is pretty gosh-darn settled. We *were* at war. But that comes into question more in the more recent Sept. 11th example. More on that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
