 | | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!" —John Neal
|
| | | (...) Not my spin. That is *totally* putting the situation WAY out of context. As I mentioned before, I kind of question the motives of people who would put *so* much importance upon this minor problem (in the context of all of the problems on earth (...) (23 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!" —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) You mean like dropping bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? No argument. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!" —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) No, there was a rational reason for dropping those-- to end the war, and prevent even *more* widespread killing. And it worked. That is not to say that that call was a no-brainer. It was an agonizing decision to make, and truthfully, the (...) (23 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | The Eternal Nuke Debate? (was: Re: First entry in "predict the responses!") —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | (...) This is the accepted wisdom, and no doubt that was a big part of the justification. But I don't think it was the only reason. (...) An interesting sidebar: Another point that's often been brought up is the less morally but far more (...) (23 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Eternal Nuke Debate? (was: Re: First entry in "predict the responses!") —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) I guess I am just trying to give some perspective to the "us vs. them" mentality that seems to pervade these discussions -- and I insist that there is no "us" and also no "them." Human being are capable of atrocity if pushed to a point beyond (...) (23 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
