Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 22, 12:17 am, "John E." wrote:
Mr. Self,

I don't consider myself a "revisionist asshole" but I do believe
that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral. As were
the fire bombings of Dresden, the raids over Tokyo, the bombing of
London, the concentration and the internment camps, et al.

War is an immoral business, no matter who starts it.

It if solved anything, we wouldn't need to keep having them.

John E.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

...

16 million served in the Armed Forces during WWII, if my memory is
working. I still ahve a partial book or two of the green stamps
around, stamps my parents bought for me when I was 3-4-5-6.

Now, we get revisionist assholes stating that A-bombing Japan was
immoral, and killed far more people than necessary. Oh, yeah. And
it
was racist because we didn't A-bomb Germany. True enough, but,
IIRC,
Germany quit about the same day Truman was sworn in to replace
Roosevelt, who had just died. Hitler suicided that same day and
that
war was effectively over. Too, I guess the revisionists haven't
heard of the fire bombing of Dresden, nor the fears that all the
top brass in the U.S. had at the time that the Japanese were
prepared to defend their land to the last person. I still believe
that.

Semper fi.

I am not in favor of war when less costly--in terms of lives and
emotions, as well as the lesser problem of money--methods work.
Unfortunately, that is not always the case...let's recall that WWII
gained some major impetus, on the European side at least, by an
attempt at being easy, taking the other side's word, and
then...blitzkrieg.

Pacifism only works when non-pacifists kick the crap out of enemies
of
the pacifists.

Or when the non-pacifists see themselves as decent sporting gents like
the Brits in India. The Nazis or Soviets would have just rounded up
Gandhi and his lot sent them to the camps.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)