 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"Clark Magnuson" wrote in message
... Now, if you want to know what I find *really* crazy about the things you've said, it's that business about teaching kids superstition disguised as science. Creationism isn't even accepted by the major religions. It takes a willful ignorance to want to promote it in the schools, and it isn't going to happen, because most people aren't that superstitious. If you want it, get "Superstition" added to the curriculum. They can teach creationism, and shamanism, maybe a little witchcraft...it's all the same thing. Maybe they'll include ritual sacrifice. -- Ed Huntress Ed I have nothing against the theory of evolution, I just have something against the kind of anti gun nuts I am up against, that do not limit thier hate to gun owners, they have plenty left over for Christians. I think there's some truth in that, but there's enough hatred on both sides that it should tell you there's no rationality in the arguments anymore. It's mostly a culture war. But I can sympathize with your frustration. It's a shame that there is such a conflict going on that religion has become politics, and it's a shame that the world views on both sides of gun control haven't been resolved without so much rancor. That issue, however, is naturally rancorous. I don't believe that it had to precipitate the way it did, but it did. Right now it's roughly stalled and responsible people still have their guns. Even irresponsible people still have their guns. Overall, I'd say the pro-gun side is 'way ahead of the other side, has been 'way ahead, and looks like it will continue to be 'way ahead. They do not give a 10 year old a text book to take home entitled "Evolution" for science. It is politics. It is anti Christian family srategy. It is throwing a pig's head into the mosque. No, I don't think there's a case to be made there. Evolution has been mainstream science for roughly a century now. Most Christian churches accept it. A slice of evangelical/pentacostal offshoots do not accept it. And quite a few fundamentalist Christians who aren't aligned with any particular thread of protestantism do not accept it. Yet, there is no legitimate scientific theory that challenges it in any way. You may disagree with that, and I'm not qualified nor interested in providing a big defense of it, but most people accept that real science, legitimate science, is convinced that is the case. So most people believe that scientists have advised school-curriculum bodies well that they should teach it in biological science. They may be suspicious of one aspect of current scientific thought or another, but they trust the process in general, and large majorities in nearly all parts of the country support it as part of the curriculum. That is typically perpitrated by someone who does not own a mill or a lathe, but someone so liberal and emotional that they are into animal rights, gay rights, gun control, comunist values, anti family values, promisquous sex, and hates SUVs. Ed, I believe you DO know how to operate a lathe and a mill. How did you find yourself in with the hairdressers? I'm going to hope you're kidding that operating a lathe or a mill (I own one of each) has anything to do with one's view of the world, Clark. It's true that the machining business in general, overall, tends to go hand-in-hand with conservative economic views, and it's true that small-business owners tend to have conservative social views. But the two are not connected except by the fact that small-business owners ALWAYS feel they're under fire from someone who wants to stand in their way to the American Dream; they always have felt that way and probably always will. As for the hairdressers, I've never known a male "hairdresser," which is what I'm guessing you're referring to, so I don't know much about their politics. And I don't trust TV to tell me. g However, you ought to know *my* hairdresser, who is a very sharp-looking lady just under 40, and who has some of the nicest finger tips that have ever run across your scalp. I pay quite a premium for my haircuts over what I'd pay to have them done by the dried-up old fart downtown who would cut my hair in half the time, but it's worth it. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Martin" wrote in message
ups.com... Ed Huntress wrote: "John Martin" wrote in message oups.com... Ed Huntress wrote: Yeah, we haven't seen one of those for a long while, maybe 60 years or so. Oh, I think I'd count the little wars with the various pieces of the former Yugoslavia. They probably were worth fighting, but it was the Western Europeans who should have been fighting them, not us. Unless you count the glorious conquest of Granada. . . -- Ed Huntress We invaded Spain? John Martin Oh, you mean I misspelled Grenada. Guilty. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Sorry to be so picky, Ed, but, as a writer, I'm sure you appreciate how a little something like that can lend a whole new meaning to things. Not as much fun as a post a while back about the McCartney Era, though. Sure, I get paid to get those things right. But not here. Nobody pays me. I get a little loose of discourse, as Thomas Jefferson once said about a famous letter he wrote. g -- Ed Huntress |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news  Go **** yourself. GO ED!! |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:58:02 -0400, JohnM wrote:
Cliff wrote: On Sun, 01 May 2005 21:10:16 -0500, "lionslair at consolidated dot net" "lionslair at consolidated dot net" wrote: Cliff wrote: On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:49:44 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote: Do note how leftist today condemn the U.S. for the atomic bombing of Japan, however. Actually, it could have easily been mostly avoided. Mountain tops would have worked about as well as demonstrations, as would have the sea or bays. It was overkill. Blowing up a mountain or vaporizing a bay would spread the poison much farther. That was of how much concern? And you are probably wrong in any case. You're ****ing ignorant. Wingerism #1 ..... Which way do the winds usually blow? What causes fallout? How is it measured? Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby? How much more does water create? The pervailing winds blow to the East, over the ocean, right? (Lots of ocean & bays on the East side of Japan BTW.) And a mountain, being higher, would have had higher fallout to begin with .... thus more time needed to settle. They are also usually a bit more sparsely populated than major metro areas ..... You're very ****ing ignorant. Wingerism #2 ..... http://www.peaklist.org/WWmaps/ultra/japan.jpg I see lots of mountains ..... http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...n_pop_1971.jpg Ant they don't all look highly populated .... John One must admire wingers for something ..... but I'm still wondering what. -- Cliff |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 22:07:09 -0500, wrote:
(See how simple that is.) It wasn't a democrat only war. But it sure was Democrats in charge. Guys like Dwight D. Eisenhower, right? Here he is again: http://www.mayaparadise.com/ufc1e.htm [ In 1944, the people of Guatemala overthrew the right-wing dictator then in power, Jorge Ubico. Guatemala held its first true elections in history. They elected Dr. Juan Jose Arevalo Bermej to the presidency. A new constitution was drawn up, based on the U.S. Constitution. Arevalo was a socialist and an educator who built over 6,000 schools in Guatemala and made great progress in education and health care. ] [ The U.S. State Department and United Fruit embarked on a major public relations campaign to convince the American people and the rest of the U.S. government that Guatemala was a Soviet "satellite". "It [United Fruit] began with enviable connections to the Eisenhower administration. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his former New York law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, had long represented the company. Allen Dulles, head of the CIA, had served on UFCO's board of trustees. Ed Whitman, the company's top public relations officer, was the husband of Ann Whitman, President Eisenhower's private secretary. (Ed Whitman produced a film, "Why the Kremlin Hates Bananas," that pictured UFCO fighting in the front trenches of the cold war.) The fruit firm's success in linking the taking of its lands to the evil of international communism was later described by one UFCO official as "the Disney version of the episode." But the company's efforts paid off. It picked up the expenses of journalists who traveled to Guatemala to learn United Fruit's side of the crisis, and some of the most respected North American publications - including the New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, and New Leader - ran stories that pleased the company. A UFCO public relations official later observed that his firm helped condition North American readers to accept the State Department's version of the Arbenz regime as Communist-controlled and the U.S.-planned invasion as wholly Guatemalan." (Quoted from Inevitable Revolutions - The United States in Central America by Walter La Feber, 2nd ed. 1993, pp. 120-121. The campaign succeeded and in 1954 the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a coup, code-named "Operation PBSUCCESS". The invading force numbered only 150 men under the command of Castillo Armas but the CIA convinced the Guatemalan public and President Arbenz that a major invasion was underway. The CIA set up a clandestine radio station to carry propaganda, jammed all Guatemalan stations, and hired skilled American pilots to bomb strategic points in Guatemala City. The U.S. replaced the freely elected government of Guatemala with another right-wing dictatorship that would again bend to UFCO's will. ] You just cannot trust those Democrats & their wars ..... -- Cliff |
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:36:36 -0700, Clark Magnuson
wrote: Ed I have nothing against the theory of evolution, I just have something against the kind of anti gun nuts I am up against, that do not limit thier hate to gun owners, they have plenty left over for Christians. They do not give a 10 year old a text book to take home entitled "Evolution" for science. It is politics. It is anti Christian family srategy. It is throwing a pig's head into the mosque. I'd guess that it's called a science text or a biology text ..... not an "Evolution" text. OTOH Where do you get these "ideas" from? Some radio or TV preacher? And where did YOU come from? A cabbage? -- Cliff |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 4 May 2005 00:28:59 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: It's a shame that there is such a conflict going on that religion has become politics, and it's a shame that the world views on both sides of gun control haven't been resolved without so much rancor. That issue, however, is naturally rancorous. I don't believe that it had to precipitate the way it did, but it did. Right now it's roughly stalled and responsible people still have their guns. Even irresponsible people still have their guns. And everyone that has one probably claims that it makes them safer ..... not that they seem able to count. Odds against: at LEAST 8 to 1. Per one of Gunner's blogs, more like 30 to 1. Hard to claim that folks that cannot count to at least 8 are very rational G. -- Cliff |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 3 May 2005 23:44:09 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: Oh, you mean I misspelled Grenada. Guilty. d8-) Had you posted Granola .... -- Cliff |
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:58:02 -0400, JohnM wrote: Cliff wrote: On Sun, 01 May 2005 21:10:16 -0500, "lionslair at consolidated dot net" "lionslair at consolidated dot net" wrote: Cliff wrote: On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:49:44 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote: Do note how leftist today condemn the U.S. for the atomic bombing of Japan, however. Actually, it could have easily been mostly avoided. Mountain tops would have worked about as well as demonstrations, as would have the sea or bays. It was overkill. Blowing up a mountain or vaporizing a bay would spread the poison much farther. That was of how much concern? And you are probably wrong in any case. You're ****ing ignorant. Wingerism #1 ..... Which way do the winds usually blow? What causes fallout? How is it measured? Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby? How much more does water create? I think the wind in your neighborhood blows up your ass. Did you look up prevailing wind direction for the area of Japan you're addressing for the time you're addressing? No. You're like them Neocons, you suppose that everyone's experience is the same as your own (and your assesment of your own may well be faulty, do you have any way to assure yourself that it isn't?). Do you know what "fallout" is? I don't think you do, 'cause if you did you'd not make some whining noise like "Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby". Look it up, do some research and learn something before you spew. A previous poster says "Blowing up a mountain or vaporizing a bay would spread the poison much farther" to which you respond in your charming way "And you are probably wrong in any case". And then you say "And a mountain, being higher, would have had higher fallout to begin with .... thus more time needed to settle." Aren't you saying a very similar thing to that which you previously applied such an intelligent and insightful response? You're exceedingly ****ing ignorant. John The pervailing winds blow to the East, over the ocean, right? (Lots of ocean & bays on the East side of Japan BTW.) And a mountain, being higher, would have had higher fallout to begin with .... thus more time needed to settle. They are also usually a bit more sparsely populated than major metro areas ..... You're very ****ing ignorant. Wingerism #2 ..... http://www.peaklist.org/WWmaps/ultra/japan.jpg I see lots of mountains ..... http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...n_pop_1971.jpg Ant they don't all look highly populated .... John One must admire wingers for something ..... but I'm still wondering what. |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Why" wrote in message
... Sigh... That's what I've been doing. I gotta tell ya', Sam, the ad biz is loaded with some of the best-looking women you've ever seen. They've taken over the business. And it makes getting up to go to work every day just a little bit brighter. think....and at least all of the machinery is paid for.... You should talk to Dobie Dave about that. He's leveraged owning paid-up machines into a strong, niche angle on business. Seriously. Yep, & it's fun or was until you told us what you are doing for a living now with all the cute chicks all over  Damn I better go drinksome more sulphur oil (cures everything you know)  That's one thing that wore me down about the machining business. Nothing to look at. If you work in a New York publishing office, or in the ad biz or almost any other part of commercial media, you get a whole different outlook. There were a couple of young female editors at AM who, if I took one to a machine shop for an interview, would absolutely stop work DEAD as they walked through the place. g You don't realize how starved those guys are until you see the scuff marks on their chins after one of those walk-throughs. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kathy" wrote in message
... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message news Go **** yourself. GO ED!! Whenever you say something like that I feel like you've got a towel around your neck and a styptic pencil in your hand, waiting for the bell to ring so you can give me a pep talk and stop the bleeding. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 04 May 2005 13:15:37 -0400, JohnM wrote:
Wingerism #1 ..... Which way do the winds usually blow? What causes fallout? How is it measured? Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby? How much more does water create? I think the wind in your neighborhood blows up your ass. Did you look up prevailing wind direction for the area of Japan you're addressing for the time you're addressing? No. Which *specific* area do you have in mind and when, exactly? You're like them Neocons, you suppose that everyone's experience is the same as your own (and your assesment of your own may well be faulty, do you have any way to assure yourself that it isn't?). AFAIK the wind that blows in from one direction usually blows away in the opposite ... Or is this about hot air? The atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. In Japan in the summer the prevailing winds are from the southeast and hence blow to the northwest. Lots of ocean out there. Do you know what "fallout" is? I don't think you do, 'cause if you did you'd not make some whining noise like "Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby". Look it up, do some research and learn something before you spew. As it travels in the prevailing winds the lower stuff falls down in a shorter time as does the heavier stuff. The higher it is to begin with the longer it takes to land and the more widely spread (at lower doses) it gets. Ever read "Hiroshima" by John Hersey ? Good book. How about the "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" published by the AEC in 1957 ? A previous poster says "Blowing up a mountain or vaporizing a bay would spread the poison much farther" to which you respond in your charming way "And you are probably wrong in any case". And the context was what, exactly? Spreadng it farther and out to sea lowers the human dosages. In which case it's a lesser poison to humans, not a greater one, as was clearly implied. And then you say "And a mountain, being higher, would have had higher fallout to begin with .... thus more time needed to settle." Aren't you saying a very similar thing to that which you previously applied such an intelligent and insightful response? Missed all of the context, eh? Again, doing less damage. You're exceedingly ****ing ignorant. Another winger found I think ...... LOL .... -- Cliff |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 5 May 2005 00:39:56 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: That's one thing that wore me down about the machining business. Nothing to look at. I still recall the receptionist at one stamping shop in Muskegon, MI that we used to use .... among quite a few others in various related places (machining & CAD/CAM) ...... -- Cliff |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 5 May 2005 00:39:56 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: That's one thing that wore me down about the machining business. Nothing to look at. The sales person for IHS (http://ihs.com/ or Information Handling Services Inc.) that used to call on us in Florida was amazing. Knew the field too. If you could listen .... -- Cliff |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep, & it's fun or was until you told us what you are doing for a living now with all the cute chicks all over Damn I better go drinksome more sulphur oil (cures everything you know) I mark my shop territory by flinging surfer oil with my lathe and mill onto my self and the walls. This lead to super models hanging around the shop trying to get a date with me. |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep, & it's fun or was until you told us what you are doing for a living now with all the cute chicks all over Damn I better go drinksome more sulphur oil (cures everything you know) I mark my shop territory by flinging sulfer oil with my lathe and mill onto my self and the walls. This lead to super models hanging around the shop trying to get a date with me. |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep, & it's fun or was until you told us what you are doing for a living now with all the cute chicks all over Damn I better go drinksome more sulphur oil (cures everything you know) I mark my shop territory by flinging surfer oil with my lathe and mill onto my self and the walls. This lead to super models hanging around the shop trying to get a date with me. |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep, & it's fun or was until you told us what you are doing for a living now with all the cute chicks all over Damn I better go drinksome more sulphur oil (cures everything you know) I mark my shop territory by flinging surfer oil with my lathe and mill onto my self and the walls. This lead to super models hanging around the shop trying to get a date with me. |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 05 May 2005 19:00:00 GMT, (Ken Marsh)
wrote: Hi, In article , Cliff wrote: #Could the internet ever have been invented under #Chinese rule? # It was invented in France, right? Wrong. # CERN & all of that ... Completely erroneous. You don't like the French? How about frog legs? Google-up the words DARPA and BBN, creators of what became Arpanet, which became the Internet. http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Con...eb/WWW-en.html Can anyone really be so consistantly wrong? Can't anyone fish in peace anymore? Lots of people & groups have aided as it has evolved into what it now is. Telnet is not much used these days. -- Cliff |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
You're a real piece of work. Which way do the winds usually blow? What causes fallout? How is it measured? Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby? How much more does water create? I think the wind in your neighborhood blows up your ass. Did you look up prevailing wind direction for the area of Japan you're addressing for the time you're addressing? No. Which *specific* area do you have in mind and when, exactly? Yeah, you cut the statement that I responded to- here, I'll put it back: The pervailing winds blow to the East, over the ocean, right? (Lots of ocean & bays on the East side of Japan BTW.) And as far as a specific area, you're going to have to dream that up- it's your story, it's up to you to fill in the details. You're like them Neocons, you suppose that everyone's experience is the same as your own (and your assesment of your own may well be faulty, do you have any way to assure yourself that it isn't?). AFAIK the wind that blows in from one direction usually blows away in the opposite ... Or is this about hot air? The atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. In Japan in the summer the prevailing winds are from the southeast and hence blow to the northwest. Lots of ocean out there. Are you going to stick with this statement or are you going to want to change it? Let me know, because it affects my response- read above, where I quote you saying something quite different (nearly opposite) and get back with me, ok? Do you know what "fallout" is? I don't think you do, 'cause if you did you'd not make some whining noise like "Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby". Look it up, do some research and learn something before you spew. As it travels in the prevailing winds the lower stuff falls down in a shorter time as does the heavier stuff. The higher it is to begin with the longer it takes to land and the more widely spread (at lower doses) it gets. Ever read "Hiroshima" by John Hersey ? Good book. How about the "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" published by the AEC in 1957 ? Golly, you sure are well read on the subject. About as well read as I was in high school. A previous poster says "Blowing up a mountain or vaporizing a bay would spread the poison much farther" to which you respond in your charming way "And you are probably wrong in any case". And the context was what, exactly? Spreadng it farther and out to sea lowers the human dosages. In which case it's a lesser poison to humans, not a greater one, as was clearly implied. Pretty simplistic reasoning, don'cha think? And you were basing that on a supposition that you've now (apparently) stated was wrong. And then you say "And a mountain, being higher, would have had higher fallout to begin with .... thus more time needed to settle." Aren't you saying a very similar thing to that which you previously applied such an intelligent and insightful response? Missed all of the context, eh? Again, doing less damage. Oh, I get it- when you said "higher fallout" you meant a couple thousand feet farther above sea level, not a larger amount of particles. You're supposing that all bursts produce uniform amounts of fallout and that it all spreads uniformly. You sure got it figured out, Sherlock. Let me explain something that you don't seem to understand.. The point to an attack on an enemy (usually) is to inflict maximum damage. The point to an experiment is to understand what you are dealing with. The atomic bombings of two Japanese cities were both- attacks upon an enemy in the context of "total war" and studies of the effect of a new weapon upon the sort of target it was suited for. Okay, there's also the point of demonstrating to Stalin that ****ing with the West was not likely to be in his best interest.. What you appear to not understand is the fact that the Allies were dealing with an incredible mindset in the Japanese enemy. Have you read "A Torch to the Enemy"? It's an interesting book, it describes the firebombing of Japan and a few of the many horrors that these people found insufficient to convince them that unconditional surrender was preferable to continuing a war they had started. It wasn't just a matter of defeating an enemy in the field, it was a matter (similar to the European struggle) of changing the point of view of a civilian population. Yes, there was more to it than that, but that was the basic problem- and you, coming along 50+ years later supposing that nuking a mountain might have been a nicer thing to do is simple-minded as hell. It's not a matter of fallout, it's a matter of convincing people that it's time for things to change. What about the fact that a usage of the atomic bombs that you suggest might have led to a similar effect that the settling of the first world war did? The people of the time we're discussing understood the mistakes of that, they had already seen the efforts of the Russians to grab everything that wasn't broke in their portion of Europe. The Russians, and everyone else (including the Japanese) knew that Japan was defeated- it belonged to the victors. They also got the clue that if we would nuke what already belonged to us, we'd sure as hell nuke them if they pushed the issue. You're the one with the context problem, you're trying to take these actions entirely out of context of the developing world at that time- that's why you don't understand. What would have been better for the Japanese; what happened, or a struggle to the end with Allied (including Russian) air power and infantry? Would a Japan divided as Germany was have been better for them or the rest of the world? I'm reluctant to put my judgements of what would have been better for someone else upon them, but your argument forces me to. I've thought long and hard over this issue, it bothers me as much as it appears to bother you.. The use of two atomic bombs was certainly not something done out of benevolence, but it may have been the best thing that could have happened for Japan and the rest of the world. If you're not able to look at it in this context then you're simply going to be limited to crying about "fallout", "mountains" and "prevailing winds" and never understanding the greater context. Understand, Cliff. Understand that the burning of every Japanese city as big as or bigger than Fort Wayne, Indiana had not ended the war. Understand that B-29's flew without guns (for the purpose of carrying an increased bomb load), without the formations that were necessary for the bombing of Germany (this means that they had little to fear from Japanese defences), burning virtually every Japanese city of the slightest import and the war didn't end. Understand that the Japanese firemen had a tradition of staking a man with a flag at a point where the fire wouldn't be allowed to pass- and he was expected to stand at his post if the conflagration swept over him or he was shunned as a coward. Understand that this was a mindset that made for a Japanese WWII soldier still fighting the war being found in *my* memory (and I'm 42). Tell us how you'd deal with this mindset, tell us how you'd have done it better. Describe the world that would have been the result of your choices. What about the Cuban missle incident of '62? What might have been the result of that if the Russians thought the Americans were reluctant to nuke an enemy city? Perhaps you'd have had some personal experience with fallout and prevailing winds, no? The world that has been the result of the decisions made in those days isn't so bad.. Japan is our ally, and I'd not have it any other way. I, and apparently you, wish it hadn't had to happen the way it did.. but it did. You're exceedingly ****ing ignorant. You can change this, Cliff- you can change this assesment.. But it takes more than what we've seen so far. Another winger found I think ...... LOL .... You think? Not yet you don't, but maybe someday.. John |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 10:31:38 -0400, JohnM wrote:
Cliff wrote: You're a real piece of work. Logic & reason often win. Which way do the winds usually blow? What causes fallout? How is it measured? Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby? How much more does water create? I think the wind in your neighborhood blows up your ass. Did you look up prevailing wind direction for the area of Japan you're addressing for the time you're addressing? No. Which *specific* area do you have in mind and when, exactly? Yeah, you cut the statement that I responded to- here, I'll put it back: The pervailing winds blow to the East, over the ocean, right? (Lots of ocean & bays on the East side of Japan BTW.) And as far as a specific area, you're going to have to dream that up- it's your story, it's up to you to fill in the details. It was your complaint ...... not mine G. Looks like a LOT of specific areas could have been selected from .... but you don't think so .... You're like them Neocons, you suppose that everyone's experience is the same as your own (and your assesment of your own may well be faulty, do you have any way to assure yourself that it isn't?). AFAIK the wind that blows in from one direction usually blows away in the opposite ... Or is this about hot air? The atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. In Japan in the summer the prevailing winds are from the southeast and hence blow to the northwest. Lots of ocean out there. Are you going to stick with this statement or are you going to want to change it? How much is "lots"? Or was it the "east" bit in "southeast" that confused you? Let me know, because it affects my response- read above, where I quote you saying something quite different (nearly opposite) What did you have troubles comprehending? and get back with me, ok? Boo Do you know what "fallout" is? I don't think you do, 'cause if you did you'd not make some whining noise like "Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby". Look it up, do some research and learn something before you spew. As it travels in the prevailing winds the lower stuff falls down in a shorter time as does the heavier stuff. The higher it is to begin with the longer it takes to land and the more widely spread (at lower doses) it gets. Ever read "Hiroshima" by John Hersey ? Good book. How about the "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" published by the AEC in 1957 ? Golly, you sure are well read on the subject. Aw, shucks blushes. Did I mention Physics? Probably not ..... Reason & logic? Perhaps. About as well read as I was in high school. "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" was on your required reading list? Tried the Cliff's Notes version? A previous poster says "Blowing up a mountain or vaporizing a bay would spread the poison much farther" to which you respond in your charming way "And you are probably wrong in any case". And the context was what, exactly? Spreadng it farther and out to sea lowers the human dosages. In which case it's a lesser poison to humans, not a greater one, as was clearly implied. Pretty simplistic reasoning, don'cha think? It's actually not very complicated, now is it? And you were basing that on a supposition that you've now (apparently) stated was wrong. Are you always so confused? By what? Have a list? And then you say "And a mountain, being higher, would have had higher fallout to begin with .... thus more time needed to settle." Aren't you saying a very similar thing to that which you previously applied such an intelligent and insightful response? Missed all of the context, eh? Again, doing less damage. Oh, I get it- when you said "higher fallout" you meant a couple thousand feet farther above sea level, not a larger amount of particles. Higher, not more. Mountains are higher, right? And above them higher yet, right? Is there a flaw in the reasoning here? You're supposing that all bursts produce uniform amounts of fallout Nope. I did not say that. In addition, you have to define "fallout" a bit. However, given the *same bomb* and an air blast at the same altitude above similar elements in the local environment, probably so. and that it all spreads uniformly. I explicitly stated other things. You sure got it figured out, Sherlock. One of us ..... Let me explain something that you don't seem to understand.. The point to an attack on an enemy (usually) is to inflict maximum damage. Gee, it would have been better to end the war IMHO. The point to an experiment is to understand what you are dealing with. The atomic bombings of two Japanese cities were both- attacks upon an enemy in the context of "total war" and studies of the effect of a new weapon upon the sort of target it was suited for. Much of the later was mostly known. Nor can using human subjects to test such be justified except by brain dead wingers. Now we know a bit more about you, right? Are small animals safe in your area? Want to retract/rephrase that one G? Okay, there's also the point of demonstrating to Stalin that ****ing with the West was not likely to be in his best interest.. Ummmm ..... big student of History are you? What you appear to not understand is the fact that the Allies You mean Stalin/USSR, the US, the UK, .... ? were dealing with an incredible mindset in the Japanese enemy. Who, by many reports, were trying to surrender anyway. Working on it, anyway. Have you read "A Torch to the Enemy"? It's an interesting book, it describes the firebombing of Japan and a few of the many horrors that these people found insufficient to convince them that unconditional surrender was preferable to continuing a war they had started. Ummmm ..... what part did the "people of Japan" have in starting the war in the first place? They had a bunch of wingers in control, right? That's about like blaming you for murdering ~100,000 + in Iraq so far .... YOUR plans, right? You support it, right? Probably you do. I doubt that the people in Japan, as a whole did though. Winger brainwashing? It wasn't just a matter of defeating an enemy in the field, it was a matter (similar to the European struggle) of changing the point of view of a civilian population. They were certainly living it up. Yep. BTW, What do you think that a few free demos would have done? Yes, there was more to it than that, but that was the basic problem- and you, coming along 50+ years later supposing that nuking a mountain might have been a nicer thing to do is simple-minded as hell. Attitude ...... It's not a matter of fallout, Oops .... then your posts were wrong? it's a matter of convincing people that it's time for things to change. My, my ...... WHICH people? What about the fact that a usage of the atomic bombs that you suggest might have led to a similar effect that the settling of the first world war did? Loaned out all of your pins to the angels, eh? Pretty good interest rate? The people of the time we're discussing understood the mistakes of that, they had already seen the efforts of the Russians to grab everything that wasn't broke in their portion of Europe. The Russians, and everyone else (including the Japanese) knew that Japan was defeated- it belonged to the victors. Were you an English major? They also got the clue that if we would nuke what already belonged to us, Japan? we'd sure as hell nuke them if they pushed the issue. Love that history stuff. You're the one with the context problem, you're trying to take these actions entirely out of context of the developing world at that time- that's why you don't understand. boom What would have been better for the Japanese; Being alive? what happened, or a struggle to the end with Allied (including Russian) air power and infantry? See above. Would a Japan divided as Germany was have been better for them or the rest of the world? I'm reluctant to put my judgements of what would have been better for someone else upon them, but your argument forces me to. Stalin had removed almost all of his forces from the East long ago to fight in the West. Dang !! It's that history stuff again !! BTW, What would he have used as a port to launch an invasion from? What to use as ships? Oops ... I've thought long and hard over this issue, it bothers me as much as it appears to bother you.. The use of two atomic bombs was certainly not something done out of benevolence, but it may have been the best thing that could have happened for Japan and the rest of the world. Trying my suggestions first ....... If you're not able to look at it in this context then you're simply going to be limited to crying about "fallout", "mountains" and "prevailing winds" and never understanding the greater context. Those grand schemes do get forests lost. Understand, Cliff. Understand that the burning of every Japanese city as big as or bigger than Fort Wayne, Indiana had not ended the war. Where's that history stuff again ..... Understand that B-29's flew without guns (for the purpose of carrying an increased bomb load), without the formations that were necessary for the bombing of Germany (this means that they had little to fear from Japanese defences), burning virtually every Japanese city of the slightest import and the war didn't end. Understand that the Japanese firemen had a tradition of staking a man with a flag at a point where the fire wouldn't be allowed to pass- and he was expected to stand at his post if the conflagration swept over him or he was shunned as a coward. Rather counterproductive, if true. Understand that this was a mindset that made for a Japanese WWII soldier still fighting the war being found in *my* memory (and I'm 42). Where do you get your history from? Tell us how you'd deal with this mindset, tell us how you'd have done it better. And my subject was? Describe the world that would have been the result of your choices. Ask for your pins back. What about the Cuban missle incident of '62? What might have been the result of that if the Russians thought the Americans were reluctant to nuke an enemy city? Plus the interest. Different subject, beyond the scope, trying to change subject ..... Perhaps you'd have had some personal experience with fallout and prevailing winds, no? The world that has been the result of the decisions made in those days isn't so bad.. Japan is our ally, and I'd not have it any other way. I, and apparently you, wish it hadn't had to happen the way it did.. but it did. You're exceedingly ****ing ignorant. You can change this, Cliff- you can change this assesment.. But it takes more than what we've seen so far. I begin to suspect other problems too G. Another winger found I think ...... LOL .... You think? Not yet you don't, but maybe someday.. Which way do the winds blow? HTH -- Cliff |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 10:31:38 -0400, JohnM wrote:
What you appear to not understand is the fact that the Allies were dealing with an incredible mindset in the Japanese enemy. Have you read "A Torch to the Enemy"? It's an interesting book, it describes the firebombing of Japan and a few of the many horrors that these people found insufficient to convince them that unconditional surrender was preferable to continuing a war they had started. It wasn't just a matter of defeating an enemy in the field, it was a matter (similar to the European struggle) of changing the point of view of a civilian population. Yes, there was more to it than that, but that was the basic problem- and you, coming along 50+ years later supposing that nuking a mountain might have been a nicer thing to do is simple-minded as hell. It's not a matter of fallout, it's a matter of convincing people that it's time for things to change. General comment: Lacking any navy, Japan was just another quaint chain of volcanic islands, devoid of oil or coal AFAIK. "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." George Orwell --Notes on Nationalism HTH -- Cliff |
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 10:31:38 -0400, JohnM wrote: What you appear to not understand is the fact that the Allies were dealing with an incredible mindset in the Japanese enemy. Have you read "A Torch to the Enemy"? It's an interesting book, it describes the firebombing of Japan and a few of the many horrors that these people found insufficient to convince them that unconditional surrender was preferable to continuing a war they had started. It wasn't just a matter of defeating an enemy in the field, it was a matter (similar to the European struggle) of changing the point of view of a civilian population. Yes, there was more to it than that, but that was the basic problem- and you, coming along 50+ years later supposing that nuking a mountain might have been a nicer thing to do is simple-minded as hell. It's not a matter of fallout, it's a matter of convincing people that it's time for things to change. General comment: Lacking any navy, Japan was just another quaint chain of volcanic islands, devoid of oil or coal AFAIK. "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." George Orwell --Notes on Nationalism HTH Define "atrocity" for me. Do you suppose that treating someone as they treat you and others is necessarily an atrocity? Can you say Nanking? Bataan? You and I, sitting in our comfy chairs, may define atrocity somewhat differently than people who experienced the Japanese occupation.. and you wish to pick one atrocity from a world full of them and cry that your hallucination is better? Even though you apparently don't think it through (might see an angel on a pin, horrors..) you want to have things otherwise. What about the other atrocities? What about the firebombings? Were they not atrocities? They don't bother you? You think that your little hallucination makes you a good person. You imagine that the easy act of saying that a particular terrible event should have happened in some unconsidered other way makes you special. When I challenge you to support your claims by telling something about the world that would have resulted from the actions you propose, you chant your mantra "pins and angels, pins and angels" and feel all better. You claim physics but are unable to understand that changing a major event in a series of events is very likely to have a large effect later on? And you're willing to change that event without even considering the implications of it? Unbelievable. John |
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 10:31:38 -0400, JohnM wrote: Cliff wrote: You're a real piece of work. Logic & reason often win. Apparently they don't when they're trying to deal with you. Which way do the winds usually blow? What causes fallout? How is it measured? Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby? How much more does water create? I think the wind in your neighborhood blows up your ass. Did you look up prevailing wind direction for the area of Japan you're addressing for the time you're addressing? No. Which *specific* area do you have in mind and when, exactly? Yeah, you cut the statement that I responded to- here, I'll put it back: The pervailing winds blow to the East, over the ocean, right? (Lots of ocean & bays on the East side of Japan BTW.) And as far as a specific area, you're going to have to dream that up- it's your story, it's up to you to fill in the details. It was your complaint ...... not mine G. Looks like a LOT of specific areas could have been selected from .... but you don't think so .... You're like them Neocons, you suppose that everyone's experience is the same as your own (and your assesment of your own may well be faulty, do you have any way to assure yourself that it isn't?). AFAIK the wind that blows in from one direction usually blows away in the opposite ... Or is this about hot air? The atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. In Japan in the summer the prevailing winds are from the southeast and hence blow to the northwest. Lots of ocean out there. Are you going to stick with this statement or are you going to want to change it? How much is "lots"? Or was it the "east" bit in "southeast" that confused you? I'm not feeling confused. You are the one who first stated (and based your attempt at reasoning on) "The pervailing winds blow to the East, over the ocean, right?" and then stated "In Japan in the summer the prevailing winds are from the southeast and hence blow to the northwest." So which is it? Does the wind at the location under discussion blow east or northwest (which are almost opposite directions, and both of which you have claimed). Let me know, because it affects my response- read above, where I quote you saying something quite different (nearly opposite) What did you have troubles comprehending? No lack of comprehension on my part, I'm comprehending just fine. and get back with me, ok? Boo Do you know what "fallout" is? I don't think you do, 'cause if you did you'd not make some whining noise like "Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby". Look it up, do some research and learn something before you spew. As it travels in the prevailing winds the lower stuff falls down in a shorter time as does the heavier stuff. The higher it is to begin with the longer it takes to land and the more widely spread (at lower doses) it gets. Ever read "Hiroshima" by John Hersey ? Good book. How about the "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" published by the AEC in 1957 ? Golly, you sure are well read on the subject. Aw, shucks blushes. Did I mention Physics? Probably not ..... Reason & logic? Perhaps. I'm going to have to ask you to point that out for me.. About as well read as I was in high school. "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" was on your required reading list? Tried the Cliff's Notes version? Not required, just my curiosity. Cliff's Notes? No. A previous poster says "Blowing up a mountain or vaporizing a bay would spread the poison much farther" to which you respond in your charming way "And you are probably wrong in any case". Lotsa reason and logic there.. And the context was what, exactly? Spreadng it farther and out to sea lowers the human dosages. In which case it's a lesser poison to humans, not a greater one, as was clearly implied. Pretty simplistic reasoning, don'cha think? It's actually not very complicated, now is it? Well, I suppose things are as simple as the individual looking at them. And you were basing that on a supposition that you've now (apparently) stated was wrong. Are you always so confused? By what? Have a list? See my second response above. What I'm referring to is your conflicting statements concerning wind directions. And then you say "And a mountain, being higher, would have had higher fallout to begin with .... thus more time needed to settle." Aren't you saying a very similar thing to that which you previously applied such an intelligent and insightful response? Missed all of the context, eh? Again, doing less damage. Oh, I get it- when you said "higher fallout" you meant a couple thousand feet farther above sea level, not a larger amount of particles. Higher, not more. Mountains are higher, right? And above them higher yet, right? Is there a flaw in the reasoning here? Have you worked out the effect of the mountain in question on the prevailing wind? What about particle size? What about the substance from which the fallout results and how it differs from the material from lower levels? If not, if you're simply going on some assumption that "higher" means "longer time for fallout to settle" then you're seeing things in a pretty simple fashion again. No matter how perfect the reasoning, if the basis is flawed the result is flawed. Additionally, you're writing about a bomb that puts debris miles into to air- how much of a difference will a couple thousand feet make? Another point on that subject; how many atom bombs were available to demonstrate on mountains? I've read conflicting claims on the amount of fissile material that had been produced at that time- some say enough for three bombs (the ones that were actually blown) and some say enough for one more. Regardless, it's a limited amount with a considerable wait for more. You're supposing that all bursts produce uniform amounts of fallout Nope. I did not say that. You certainly didn't indicate otherwise, and seemed to indicate that you felt that way. In addition, you have to define "fallout" a bit. Be my guest. However, given the *same bomb* and an air blast at the same altitude above similar elements in the local environment, probably so. I'll allow that, with reservations over current weather, assuming it's a burst over land. and that it all spreads uniformly. I explicitly stated other things. I'm not sure about that. You sure got it figured out, Sherlock. One of us ..... Let me explain something that you don't seem to understand.. The point to an attack on an enemy (usually) is to inflict maximum damage. Gee, it would have been better to end the war IMHO. I guess I wasn't aware that the atomic bombs were incidental to the end of the war. It took five days after the Nagasaki bomb for the Japanese to surrender- how long would it have taken without the bombs? You're right about one thing- you got a humble opinion. The point to an experiment is to understand what you are dealing with. The atomic bombings of two Japanese cities were both- attacks upon an enemy in the context of "total war" and studies of the effect of a new weapon upon the sort of target it was suited for. Much of the later was mostly known. Nor can using human subjects to test such be justified except by brain dead wingers. To the first sentence, bull****. The only target suited to an atomic bomb is a city, only one bomb had been tried, and it was tried in a desert- right? "Much", "mostly", bull**** and weak. To the second sentence, I have to agree that it's a hideous reality, but I'm not aware that it was any sort of "winger" who was responsible for it. Now we know a bit more about you, right? Are small animals safe in your area? Me? I'm a vegetarian, I don't even kill mice (but I do admit to keeping cats and hoping they'll get mice). Want to retract/rephrase that one G? No reason to retract the truth, even if it's ugly. I was not responsible and I'm glad I wasn't.. I can't imagine being willing to go to sleep with something like that on my mind, but the fact remains that it was partially a study of the effectiveness of a new weapon. If you choose to ignore that then it's your ignorance, not mine. If you think there's something wrong with me because I recognize the truth, that's your problem. Okay, there's also the point of demonstrating to Stalin that ****ing with the West was not likely to be in his best interest.. Ummmm ..... big student of History are you? Not as big as I'd like to be, but big enough to recognize that. What you appear to not understand is the fact that the Allies You mean Stalin/USSR, the US, the UK, .... ? Yes, those allies. Including Stalin. He'd been brought in on that. Remember? were dealing with an incredible mindset in the Japanese enemy. Who, by many reports, were trying to surrender anyway. Working on it, anyway. Yes, but not in the way that was required by the victors. The attempt was made to preserve the mindset, which was unacceptable. Have you read "A Torch to the Enemy"? It's an interesting book, it describes the firebombing of Japan and a few of the many horrors that these people found insufficient to convince them that unconditional surrender was preferable to continuing a war they had started. Ummmm ..... what part did the "people of Japan" have in starting the war in the first place? They had a bunch of wingers in control, right? Starting the war? I don't know, but I do know that the Kamikaze came along late in the war and they weren't experienced combat pilots (those were mostly gone)- they were new recruits, fresh from the Japanese civilian society. They were not only willing but eager to die to support the Japanese war effort. This would indicate that the population had at least a considerable segment that supported the war. Another thing that could be taken to indicate a popular support of the war is the fact (which I may have mentioned elsewhere) there are no instances in my knowlege of Japanese showing humanity to an occupied people. Every report that came from that part of the war that I'm aware of indicated viciousness on the part of the Japanese. This alone should give some insight into the opinions and views of the general population. To the second question, I'm not sure I'd term them "wingers", but they were an undesirable bunch. That's about like blaming you for murdering ~100,000 + in Iraq so far .... YOUR plans, right? You support it, right? Probably you do. I doubt that the people in Japan, as a whole did though. Winger brainwashing? Nope. My argument above, concerning the attitudes and behavior of the military in the field denies your point. You'll have trouble finding a modern conflict where Americans were consistently inhumane to an occupied people or a captured enemy. This gives a window into the society they came from, and helps to demonstrate ours is an order of magnitude (or two) more decent and respectful of humanity than the WWII Japanese society was. You doubt that the people in Japan blah blah. Why dont' you grow up? Why don't you look for evidence to support your claims? Your doubts are worth nothing. "as a whole".. Yeah, I suppose if you're saying that there wasn't a perfect agreement on everything you might be right, but that's a worthless assesment of things. I urge you to do a search on my name, prior to the Iraq mess, on usenet. You'll find my opinion on it. "Probably you do." I wonder if you have the whimpering voice that I feel I would hear if I were hearing your words spoken. It wasn't just a matter of defeating an enemy in the field, it was a matter (similar to the European struggle) of changing the point of view of a civilian population. They were certainly living it up. Yep. Who was living it up? You seem able to infer strange things from my words.. BTW, What do you think that a few free demos would have done? Free demos of what? Yes, there was more to it than that, but that was the basic problem- and you, coming along 50+ years later supposing that nuking a mountain might have been a nicer thing to do is simple-minded as hell. Attitude ...... Attitude, hell. It's simple minded. It's not a matter of fallout, Oops .... then your posts were wrong? Not mine. Perhaps you have a context problem. Taking parts of sentences from a statement is generally indicative of trouble with context. And reasoning. it's a matter of convincing people that it's time for things to change. My, my ...... WHICH people? Which people do you suppose? Try to stick with me, Cliff- we're talking about the Japanese people, the ones who viewed their Emperor as the living god. What about the fact that a usage of the atomic bombs that you suggest might have led to a similar effect that the settling of the first world war did? Loaned out all of your pins to the angels, eh? Pretty good interest rate? Pins, bull****. If you're willing to cry 'cause you don't like the way things turned out but you're not willing to try to understand what might have been the result of what you suppose to be better, it may be a defect of yours but it has little to do with angels and pins. The people of the time we're discussing understood the mistakes of that, they had already seen the efforts of the Russians to grab everything that wasn't broke in their portion of Europe. The Russians, and everyone else (including the Japanese) knew that Japan was defeated- it belonged to the victors. Were you an English major? I'm offended. They also got the clue that if we would nuke what already belonged to us, Japan? Hey, you're following the discussion. Good for you. we'd sure as hell nuke them if they pushed the issue. Love that history stuff. You're the one with the context problem, you're trying to take these actions entirely out of context of the developing world at that time- that's why you don't understand. boom What would have been better for the Japanese; Being alive? That's the most important thing to you? Continuance of (your) life? Do you hallucinate for an instant that less Japanese would have died in a conventional assault on the main island than died in the two atom bomb attacks? I just looked up Okinawa- 107,000 Japanese killed and captured. Can you imagine the cluster**** of trying to take the main island by force? what happened, or a struggle to the end with Allied (including Russian) air power and infantry? See above. I saw above, it was senseless unless you're a hippy who thinks that giving out flowers would have made everything all better. Would a Japan divided as Germany was have been better for them or the rest of the world? I'm reluctant to put my judgements of what would have been better for someone else upon them, but your argument forces me to. Stalin had removed almost all of his forces from the East long ago to fight in the West. Dang !! It's that history stuff again !! BTW, What would he have used as a port to launch an invasion from? What to use as ships? Oops ... Oh, I dunno.. maybe a few hundred lend-lease bombers loaded with paratroopers.. wait 'till late in the game, hit anyplace where the Americans hadn't gotten yet. You could figure it out, if you were to try a little. There probably wouldn't have been much of a chance of Japanese army officers accepting Russians as commanders, but one never knows.. They had to have hated Americans pretty thoroughly by then. I've thought long and hard over this issue, it bothers me as much as it appears to bother you.. The use of two atomic bombs was certainly not something done out of benevolence, but it may have been the best thing that could have happened for Japan and the rest of the world. Trying my suggestions first ....... I don't think I'd try your suggestions for tying my bootlace. If you're not able to look at it in this context then you're simply going to be limited to crying about "fallout", "mountains" and "prevailing winds" and never understanding the greater context. Those grand schemes do get forests lost. Understand, Cliff. Understand that the burning of every Japanese city as big as or bigger than Fort Wayne, Indiana had not ended the war. Where's that history stuff again ..... yeah, blah. Understand that B-29's flew without guns (for the purpose of carrying an increased bomb load), without the formations that were necessary for the bombing of Germany (this means that they had little to fear from Japanese defences), burning virtually every Japanese city of the slightest import and the war didn't end. Understand that the Japanese firemen had a tradition of staking a man with a flag at a point where the fire wouldn't be allowed to pass- and he was expected to stand at his post if the conflagration swept over him or he was shunned as a coward. Rather counterproductive, if true. Yes, true. I agree, it's a counterproductive way to do things, and painful too, but it's part of the mindset that had to be dealt with. And that was a civilian.. do you suppose an infantryman might be equally determined? And you suppose that taking the main Japanese island by force would have been less bad than the two atom bombs? Understand that this was a mindset that made for a Japanese WWII soldier still fighting the war being found in *my* memory (and I'm 42). Where do you get your history from? Where don't you get yours? 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onoda, 1974, I'll let you look it up. Tell us how you'd deal with this mindset, tell us how you'd have done it better. And my subject was? You told nothing. You explained nothing about how your version of history would have worked out better. You offered nothing but the supposition that nuking a mountain would have been the better course, and you can't even support that claim. Describe the world that would have been the result of your choices. Ask for your pins back. Keep 'em, you need 'em. What about the Cuban missle incident of '62? What might have been the result of that if the Russians thought the Americans were reluctant to nuke an enemy city? Plus the interest. Different subject, beyond the scope, trying to change subject ..... Beyond the scope, bull****. Different subject, bull****. You change one bit of history, you alter it all. You wish to alter it, to make it better with your preferred action- you have no choice but for the effects to continue on. If you can suppose that the use of atomic weapons and the later threat of the use of them (by the country that used them in the first place) are different subjects, you're seriously lacking some understanding. Perhaps you'd have had some personal experience with fallout and prevailing winds, no? The world that has been the result of the decisions made in those days isn't so bad.. Japan is our ally, and I'd not have it any other way. I, and apparently you, wish it hadn't had to happen the way it did.. but it did. You're exceedingly ****ing ignorant. You can change this, Cliff- you can change this assesment.. But it takes more than what we've seen so far. I begin to suspect other problems too G. Another winger found I think ...... LOL .... You think? Not yet you don't, but maybe someday.. Which way do the winds blow? HTH That's what I was hoping you'd clear up for us all. Once more; is it east, or is it northwest? You've said both so far, or would you like to pick another direction.. Anyway, Cliff, you're sort of a hoot. Do you wear a tie? You should.. John |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 22:39:32 -0400, JohnM wrote:
Cliff wrote: On Fri, 06 May 2005 10:31:38 -0400, JohnM wrote: Cliff wrote: You're a real piece of work. Logic & reason often win. Apparently they don't when they're trying to deal with you. Which way do the winds usually blow? What causes fallout? How is it measured? Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby? How much more does water create? I think the wind in your neighborhood blows up your ass. Did you look up prevailing wind direction for the area of Japan you're addressing for the time you're addressing? No. Which *specific* area do you have in mind and when, exactly? Yeah, you cut the statement that I responded to- here, I'll put it back: The pervailing winds blow to the East, over the ocean, right? (Lots of ocean & bays on the East side of Japan BTW.) And as far as a specific area, you're going to have to dream that up- it's your story, it's up to you to fill in the details. It was your complaint ...... not mine G. Looks like a LOT of specific areas could have been selected from .... but you don't think so .... You're like them Neocons, you suppose that everyone's experience is the same as your own (and your assesment of your own may well be faulty, do you have any way to assure yourself that it isn't?). AFAIK the wind that blows in from one direction usually blows away in the opposite ... Or is this about hot air? The atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. In Japan in the summer the prevailing winds are from the southeast and hence blow to the northwest. Lots of ocean out there. Are you going to stick with this statement or are you going to want to change it? How much is "lots"? Or was it the "east" bit in "southeast" that confused you? I'm not feeling confused. You are the one who first stated (and based your attempt at reasoning on) "The pervailing winds blow to the East, over the ocean, right?" and then stated "In Japan in the summer the prevailing winds are from the southeast and hence blow to the northwest." So which is it? Does the wind at the location under discussion blow east or northwest (which are almost opposite directions, and both of which you have claimed). Might be a bit of seasonal/directional confusion but still lots of ocean .... is August in Summer? Those winds were stated as blowing that way thru July BTW IIRC. Higher, not more. Mountains are higher, right? And above them higher yet, right? Is there a flaw in the reasoning here? Have you worked out the effect of the mountain in question on the prevailing wind? What about particle size? What about the substance from which the fallout results and how it differs from the material from lower levels? If not, if you're simply going on some assumption that "higher" means "longer time for fallout to settle" then you're seeing things in a pretty simple fashion again. No matter how perfect the reasoning, if the basis is flawed the result is flawed. Tell that to some wingers looking for "WMDs". Additionally, you're writing about a bomb that puts debris miles into to air- how much of a difference will a couple thousand feet make? Some. And the winds are usually faster up higher, thus having even more of an effect. However, given the *same bomb* and an air blast at the same altitude above similar elements in the local environment, probably so. I'll allow that, with reservations over current weather, assuming it's a burst over land. Let me explain something that you don't seem to understand.. The point to an attack on an enemy (usually) is to inflict maximum damage. Gee, it would have been better to end the war IMHO. I guess I wasn't aware that the atomic bombs were incidental to the end of the war. It took five days after the Nagasaki bomb for the Japanese to surrender- how long would it have taken without the bombs? How much would it have mattered? No Navy, little oil == little threat. In any case, they were planning on surrendering anyway it seems. They had already lost the war and knew it. You're right about one thing- you got a humble opinion. The point to an experiment is to understand what you are dealing with. The atomic bombings of two Japanese cities were both- attacks upon an enemy in the context of "total war" and studies of the effect of a new weapon upon the sort of target it was suited for. Much of the later was mostly known. Nor can using human subjects to test such be justified except by brain dead wingers. To the first sentence, bull****. The only target suited to an atomic bomb is a city, You need to think a bit more. only one bomb had been tried, and it was tried in a desert- right? Only one? In any case, the expected results were well known. "Much", "mostly", bull**** and weak. To the second sentence, I have to agree that it's a hideous reality, but I'm not aware that it was any sort of "winger" who was responsible for it. Your justification of bombing cities because human subjects were needed for testing the effects. How's Vivisection 101? Now we know a bit more about you, right? Are small animals safe in your area? Me? I'm a vegetarian, I don't even kill mice (but I do admit to keeping cats and hoping they'll get mice). They will bring them to you as presents. Huge rabbits too. Usually still partly alive. If you do not eat them warm & kicking a little they are insulted. Okay, there's also the point of demonstrating to Stalin that ****ing with the West was not likely to be in his best interest.. Ummmm ..... big student of History are you? Not as big as I'd like to be, but big enough to recognize that. What you appear to not understand is the fact that the Allies You mean Stalin/USSR, the US, the UK, .... ? Yes, those allies. Including Stalin. He'd been brought in on that. Remember? You sort of need to make up your mind. Have you read "A Torch to the Enemy"? It's an interesting book, it describes the firebombing of Japan and a few of the many horrors that these people found insufficient to convince them that unconditional surrender was preferable to continuing a war they had started. Ummmm ..... what part did the "people of Japan" have in starting the war in the first place? They had a bunch of wingers in control, right? Starting the war? I don't know, but I do know that the Kamikaze came along late in the war and they weren't experienced combat pilots (those were mostly gone)- they were new recruits, fresh from the Japanese civilian society. They were not only willing but eager to die to support the Japanese war effort. This would indicate that the population had at least a considerable segment that supported the war. Another thing that could be taken to indicate a popular support of the war is the fact (which I may have mentioned elsewhere) there are no instances in my knowlege of Japanese showing humanity to an occupied people. Every report that came from that part of the war that I'm aware of indicated viciousness on the part of the Japanese. This alone should give some insight into the opinions and views of the general population. And the current batch of neocons are murdering (~100,000+ so far) people, torturing them, assassinating them, kidnapping them, violating that "quaint" Geneva Convention ..... To the second question, I'm not sure I'd term them "wingers", but they were an undesirable bunch. The need to be kept in check at an earlier stage of events. That's about like blaming you for murdering ~100,000 + in Iraq so far .... YOUR plans, right? You support it, right? Probably you do. I doubt that the people in Japan, as a whole did though. Winger brainwashing? Nope. My argument above, concerning the attitudes and behavior of the military in the field denies your point. You'll have trouble finding a modern conflict where Americans were consistently inhumane to an occupied people or a captured enemy. Not any more. This gives a window into the society they came from, and helps to demonstrate ours is an order of magnitude (or two) more decent and respectful of humanity than the WWII Japanese society was. Not any more. You doubt that the people in Japan blah blah. Why dont' you grow up? They probably had their own Falwells, Rushs, Faux "news", Robertsons, neocons by another name, Ann Coulters, fundies, etc. Yes, there was more to it than that, but that was the basic problem- and you, coming along 50+ years later supposing that nuking a mountain might have been a nicer thing to do is simple-minded as hell. Attitude ...... Attitude, hell. It's simple minded. Got overlooked, eh? IIRC It was debated at the time ..... someone might doublecheck that. It's not a matter of fallout, Oops .... then your posts were wrong? Not mine. Perhaps you have a context problem. Taking parts of sentences from a statement is generally indicative of trouble with context. And reasoning. it's a matter of convincing people that it's time for things to change. Did not seem to work here .... What about the fact that a usage of the atomic bombs that you suggest might have led to a similar effect that the settling of the first world war did? Loaned out all of your pins to the angels, eh? Pretty good interest rate? Pins, bull****. If you're willing to cry 'cause you don't like the way things turned out but you're not willing to try to understand what might have been the result of what you suppose to be better, it may be a defect of yours but it has little to do with angels and pins. A) They had lost the war & knew it. B) They had few naval forces left. C) Little oil. What would have been better for the Japanese; Being alive? That's the most important thing to you? Continuance of (your) life? Do you hallucinate for an instant that less Japanese would have died in a conventional assault on the main island than died in the two atom bomb attacks? I just looked up Okinawa- 107,000 Japanese killed and captured. Can you imagine the cluster**** of trying to take the main island by force? Got too rushed, IMO. what happened, or a struggle to the end with Allied (including Russian) air power and infantry? See above. I saw above, it was senseless unless you're a hippy who thinks that giving out flowers would have made everything all better. Many things can resolve without force. This one probably would have soon. A free demo or two on mountains or ocean .... Would a Japan divided as Germany was have been better for them or the rest of the world? I'm reluctant to put my judgements of what would have been better for someone else upon them, but your argument forces me to. Stalin had removed almost all of his forces from the East long ago to fight in the West. Dang !! It's that history stuff again !! BTW, What would he have used as a port to launch an invasion from? What to use as ships? Oops ... Oh, I dunno.. maybe a few hundred lend-lease bombers loaded with paratroopers.. wait 'till late in the game, hit anyplace where the Americans hadn't gotten yet. You could figure it out, if you were to try a little. There probably wouldn't have been much of a chance of Japanese army officers accepting Russians as commanders, but one never knows.. They had to have hated Americans pretty thoroughly by then. Oops .... then they should have let Stalin lose his paratroopers invading Japan, right? I've thought long and hard over this issue, it bothers me as much as it appears to bother you.. The use of two atomic bombs was certainly not something done out of benevolence, but it may have been the best thing that could have happened for Japan and the rest of the world. Trying my suggestions first ....... I don't think I'd try your suggestions for tying my bootlace. Check history G. http://home.att.net/~betsynewmark3/DebateonBomb.htm "Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary." "After Germany surrendered, Szilard attempted to meet with President Truman. Instead, he was given an appointment with Truman's Sec. of State to be, James Byrnes. In that meeting of May 28, 1945, Szilard told Byrnes that the atomic bomb should not be used on Japan." [ Admiral William D. Leahy (Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman) "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. ] Just one (the very first) hit on a simple search ..... If you're not able to look at it in this context then you're simply going to be limited to crying about "fallout", "mountains" and "prevailing winds" and never understanding the greater context. Those grand schemes do get forests lost. Understand, Cliff. Understand that the burning of every Japanese city as big as or bigger than Fort Wayne, Indiana had not ended the war. Where's that history stuff again ..... yeah, blah. See above link. Or search some more ...... Where do you get your history from? Where don't you get yours? 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onoda, 1974, I'll let you look it up. Tell us how you'd deal with this mindset, tell us how you'd have done it better. And my subject was? You told nothing. You explained nothing about how your version of history would have worked out better. Looked like a great many at the time and after agreed with me. BTW, I searched for [truman hiroshima debate mountain sea]. You offered nothing but the supposition that nuking a mountain would have been the better course, and you can't even support that claim. A very brief search .... it seems that many argued for a demonstration. Describe the world that would have been the result of your choices. Ask for your pins back. Keep 'em, you need 'em. What about the Cuban missle incident of '62? What might have been the result of that if the Russians thought the Americans were reluctant to nuke an enemy city? Plus the interest. Different subject, beyond the scope, trying to change subject ..... Beyond the scope, bull****. Different subject, bull****. You change one bit of history, you alter it all. You wish to alter it, to make it better with your preferred action- you have no choice but for the effects to continue on. If you can suppose that the use of atomic weapons and the later threat of the use of them (by the country that used them in the first place) are different subjects, you're seriously lacking some understanding. Different subject, beyond the scope, trying to change subject ..... Perhaps you'd have had some personal experience with fallout and prevailing winds, no? The world that has been the result of the decisions made in those days isn't so bad.. Japan is our ally, and I'd not have it any other way. I, and apparently you, wish it hadn't had to happen the way it did.. but it did. You're exceedingly ****ing ignorant. You can change this, Cliff- you can change this assesment.. But it takes more than what we've seen so far. I begin to suspect other problems too G. Check the links I posted to the *actual history* G. Do a few of your own searches ... HTH -- Cliff |
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:26:25 -0400, JohnM wrote:
Cliff wrote: On Fri, 06 May 2005 10:31:38 -0400, JohnM wrote: What you appear to not understand is the fact that the Allies were dealing with an incredible mindset in the Japanese enemy. Have you read "A Torch to the Enemy"? It's an interesting book, it describes the firebombing of Japan and a few of the many horrors that these people found insufficient to convince them that unconditional surrender was preferable to continuing a war they had started. It wasn't just a matter of defeating an enemy in the field, it was a matter (similar to the European struggle) of changing the point of view of a civilian population. Yes, there was more to it than that, but that was the basic problem- and you, coming along 50+ years later supposing that nuking a mountain might have been a nicer thing to do is simple-minded as hell. It's not a matter of fallout, it's a matter of convincing people that it's time for things to change. General comment: Lacking any navy, Japan was just another quaint chain of volcanic islands, devoid of oil or coal AFAIK. "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." George Orwell --Notes on Nationalism HTH Define "atrocity" for me. Do you suppose that treating someone as they treat you and others is necessarily an atrocity? Can you say Nanking? Bataan? You and I, sitting in our comfy chairs, may define atrocity somewhat differently than people who experienced the Japanese occupation.. and you wish to pick one atrocity from a world full of them and cry that your hallucination is better? Even though you apparently don't think it through (might see an angel on a pin, horrors..) you want to have things otherwise. What about the other atrocities? What about the firebombings? Were they not atrocities? They don't bother you? You think that your little hallucination makes you a good person. You imagine that the easy act of saying that a particular terrible event should have happened in some unconsidered other way makes you special. When I challenge you to support your claims by telling something about the world that would have resulted from the actions you propose, you chant your mantra "pins and angels, pins and angels" and feel all better. You claim physics but are unable to understand that changing a major event in a series of events is very likely to have a large effect later on? And you're willing to change that event without even considering the implications of it? Unbelievable. Lacking any navy, Japan was just another quaint chain of volcanic islands, devoid of oil or coal AFAIK. "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." George Orwell --Notes on Nationalism HTH -- Cliff |
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2005 22:39:32 -0400, JohnM wrote: Cliff wrote: On Fri, 06 May 2005 10:31:38 -0400, JohnM wrote: Cliff wrote: You're a real piece of work. Logic & reason often win. Apparently they don't when they're trying to deal with you. Which way do the winds usually blow? What causes fallout? How is it measured? Do you get more from a bomb far away or one nearby? How much more does water create? I think the wind in your neighborhood blows up your ass. Did you look up prevailing wind direction for the area of Japan you're addressing for the time you're addressing? No. Which *specific* area do you have in mind and when, exactly? Yeah, you cut the statement that I responded to- here, I'll put it back: The pervailing winds blow to the East, over the ocean, right? (Lots of ocean & bays on the East side of Japan BTW.) And as far as a specific area, you're going to have to dream that up- it's your story, it's up to you to fill in the details. It was your complaint ...... not mine G. Looks like a LOT of specific areas could have been selected from .... but you don't think so .... You're like them Neocons, you suppose that everyone's experience is the same as your own (and your assesment of your own may well be faulty, do you have any way to assure yourself that it isn't?). AFAIK the wind that blows in from one direction usually blows away in the opposite ... Or is this about hot air? The atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. In Japan in the summer the prevailing winds are from the southeast and hence blow to the northwest. Lots of ocean out there. Are you going to stick with this statement or are you going to want to change it? How much is "lots"? Or was it the "east" bit in "southeast" that confused you? I'm not feeling confused. You are the one who first stated (and based your attempt at reasoning on) "The pervailing winds blow to the East, over the ocean, right?" and then stated "In Japan in the summer the prevailing winds are from the southeast and hence blow to the northwest." So which is it? Does the wind at the location under discussion blow east or northwest (which are almost opposite directions, and both of which you have claimed). Might be a bit of seasonal/directional confusion but still lots of ocean .... is August in Summer? Those winds were stated as blowing that way thru July BTW IIRC. Confusion indeed.. You're going to have to tell me about whether or not August is in summer or not, you're the one who posted the information about summer. Like I said, it's your story and you gotta tell it all by yourself. Higher, not more. Mountains are higher, right? And above them higher yet, right? Is there a flaw in the reasoning here? Have you worked out the effect of the mountain in question on the prevailing wind? What about particle size? What about the substance from which the fallout results and how it differs from the material from lower levels? If not, if you're simply going on some assumption that "higher" means "longer time for fallout to settle" then you're seeing things in a pretty simple fashion again. No matter how perfect the reasoning, if the basis is flawed the result is flawed. Tell that to some wingers looking for "WMDs". Already done that. More than once. Additionally, you're writing about a bomb that puts debris miles into to air- how much of a difference will a couple thousand feet make? Some. And the winds are usually faster up higher, thus having even more of an effect. You're grasping at straws. However, given the *same bomb* and an air blast at the same altitude above similar elements in the local environment, probably so. I'll allow that, with reservations over current weather, assuming it's a burst over land. Let me explain something that you don't seem to understand.. The point to an attack on an enemy (usually) is to inflict maximum damage. Gee, it would have been better to end the war IMHO. I guess I wasn't aware that the atomic bombs were incidental to the end of the war. It took five days after the Nagasaki bomb for the Japanese to surrender- how long would it have taken without the bombs? How much would it have mattered? No Navy, little oil == little threat. In any case, they were planning on surrendering anyway it seems. They had already lost the war and knew it. Bull****. "Little threat" does not interpret to "pushover" or "easy final victory". Let's use Iraq as an analogy; I think you and I agree that they were a rather small threat to us- but look at the trouble our military is having there. Does that make the point clear to you? Yeah, they knew they had lost the war, but there was no acceptance of unconditional surrender. The American public would not have accepted less, even if our leaders would have. You're right about one thing- you got a humble opinion. The point to an experiment is to understand what you are dealing with. The atomic bombings of two Japanese cities were both- attacks upon an enemy in the context of "total war" and studies of the effect of a new weapon upon the sort of target it was suited for. Much of the later was mostly known. Nor can using human subjects to test such be justified except by brain dead wingers. To the first sentence, bull****. The only target suited to an atomic bomb is a city, You need to think a bit more. Another idiotic statement with nothing supporting it. Ignorance. only one bomb had been tried, and it was tried in a desert- right? Only one? In any case, the expected results were well known. Bull****. The first yielded considerably more than expected- seems it was around 2/3 more. And the effects of both initial and residual radiation were not well known- why do you think so many of them scientist fellers died of cancer? "Much", "mostly", bull**** and weak. To the second sentence, I have to agree that it's a hideous reality, but I'm not aware that it was any sort of "winger" who was responsible for it. Your justification of bombing cities because human subjects were needed for testing the effects. Again, your uncanny ability to infer what does not exist comes out. How's Vivisection 101? Dunno, never signed up for it. Heard you got a doctorate in Advanced Ignorance- congratiolations. Now we know a bit more about you, right? Are small animals safe in your area? Me? I'm a vegetarian, I don't even kill mice (but I do admit to keeping cats and hoping they'll get mice). They will bring them to you as presents. Huge rabbits too. Usually still partly alive. If you do not eat them warm & kicking a little they are insulted. Ooh, cliffy- bet you were pinching your nipples when you thought that up.. Okay, there's also the point of demonstrating to Stalin that ****ing with the West was not likely to be in his best interest.. Ummmm ..... big student of History are you? Not as big as I'd like to be, but big enough to recognize that. What you appear to not understand is the fact that the Allies You mean Stalin/USSR, the US, the UK, .... ? Yes, those allies. Including Stalin. He'd been brought in on that. Remember? You sort of need to make up your mind. Strange how someone who makes conflicting statements can say something like that. Have you read "A Torch to the Enemy"? It's an interesting book, it describes the firebombing of Japan and a few of the many horrors that these people found insufficient to convince them that unconditional surrender was preferable to continuing a war they had started. Ummmm ..... what part did the "people of Japan" have in starting the war in the first place? They had a bunch of wingers in control, right? Starting the war? I don't know, but I do know that the Kamikaze came along late in the war and they weren't experienced combat pilots (those were mostly gone)- they were new recruits, fresh from the Japanese civilian society. They were not only willing but eager to die to support the Japanese war effort. This would indicate that the population had at least a considerable segment that supported the war. Another thing that could be taken to indicate a popular support of the war is the fact (which I may have mentioned elsewhere) there are no instances in my knowlege of Japanese showing humanity to an occupied people. Every report that came from that part of the war that I'm aware of indicated viciousness on the part of the Japanese. This alone should give some insight into the opinions and views of the general population. And the current batch of neocons are murdering (~100,000+ so far) people, torturing them, assassinating them, kidnapping them, violating that "quaint" Geneva Convention ..... Well, golly, I think we have to agree on this. To the second question, I'm not sure I'd term them "wingers", but they were an undesirable bunch. The need to be kept in check at an earlier stage of events. That's about like blaming you for murdering ~100,000 + in Iraq so far .... YOUR plans, right? You support it, right? Probably you do. I doubt that the people in Japan, as a whole did though. Winger brainwashing? Nope. My argument above, concerning the attitudes and behavior of the military in the field denies your point. You'll have trouble finding a modern conflict where Americans were consistently inhumane to an occupied people or a captured enemy. Not any more. We're a lot closer than we used to be, but we're still not anywhere near the point of the WWII Japanese. (snip) A) They had lost the war & knew it. B) They had few naval forces left. C) Little oil. These are all red herrings in the discussion of taking the main island by force. What would have been better for the Japanese; Being alive? That's the most important thing to you? Continuance of (your) life? Do you hallucinate for an instant that less Japanese would have died in a conventional assault on the main island than died in the two atom bomb attacks? I just looked up Okinawa- 107,000 Japanese killed and captured. Can you imagine the cluster**** of trying to take the main island by force? Got too rushed, IMO. Oh, a blockade would have been better? Starve all but the military, that's cliffy's choice? what happened, or a struggle to the end with Allied (including Russian) air power and infantry? See above. I saw above, it was senseless unless you're a hippy who thinks that giving out flowers would have made everything all better. Many things can resolve without force. This one probably would have soon. A free demo or two on mountains or ocean .... Sure. And then at the present time in another history, here'd be cliff crying that we was mean and should have nuked an American city.. Or, as I said before, maybe he'd have never been born because of the difference.. Would a Japan divided as Germany was have been better for them or the rest of the world? I'm reluctant to put my judgements of what would have been better for someone else upon them, but your argument forces me to. Stalin had removed almost all of his forces from the East long ago to fight in the West. Dang !! It's that history stuff again !! BTW, What would he have used as a port to launch an invasion from? What to use as ships? Oops ... Oh, I dunno.. maybe a few hundred lend-lease bombers loaded with paratroopers.. wait 'till late in the game, hit anyplace where the Americans hadn't gotten yet. You could figure it out, if you were to try a little. There probably wouldn't have been much of a chance of Japanese army officers accepting Russians as commanders, but one never knows.. They had to have hated Americans pretty thoroughly by then. Oops .... then they should have let Stalin lose his paratroopers invading Japan, right? Hey, cliffy found his pins. What about my last thought on that? Do you suppose that Stalin would have found it so difficult to get along with some of the Japanese military? He was pretty adaptable, especially when he thought he might gain something. He already disliked Mao, and taking up with the Japanese would have benefitted him immensely in Manchuria (which the Russians were already invading, right?) and the rest of Asia. As far as a port to launch an invasion.. Vladivostok might have worked well, right? End of the Trans-Siberian railroad, major port, right? (Big snip of cliff's links that he likes) Anyway.. I've expressed what seems to me to be the reasons for what occured. I've expressed what a bit of what seems to me might have gone differently had what you desire occured. Both of these were presented, in my opinion, with intelligence and reason. You seem to not, at least in this case, be capable of this. Bizarre inferences and claims, a refusal to examine what might be the result of things had they gone the way you'd prefer.. I guess that's just your style. John |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
Every report that came from that part of the war that I'm aware of indicated viciousness on the part of the Japanese. This alone should give some insight into the opinions and views of the general population. I've known a few old diggers that fought the Japs in New Guinea and a few that were in Changi Prison in Singapore. All agreed that two bombs weren't enough |
|
#150
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ed Huntress wrote: "Stuart Grey" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Stuart Grey" wrote in message ... But the Vennona project provided conclusive evidence that McCarthy and others were right. Let's not forget, based on Soviet archives made available to researchers in 1991, McCarthy proved to be WRONG in every case but one (possibly two) about WHO those people were. What are you talking about? McCarthy was damned because he refused to name them. The one he did name was dead on a soviet agent. This is a myth. McCarthy's committee publicly named 83 individuals because they had invoked the 5th Amendment in private hearings. Are you reason challanged? H e didn't name these people as communist, he named them as taking the fifth! And for good reason, too! These people, who worked for the government, were summuned in secret sessions, told the situation as to why the committee believed they knew about communist in the government, and then questioned, and if they took the 5th, you think it's bad that McCarthy noted publically that 83 people said that they would not testify about communist in government because it would incriminate them? Too bad your commie agents were so stupid as to take the fifth. That you have government workers being asked if they new about spies, and take the fifth, indicates a problem in government, doesn't it? You can't prosecute, but you (meaning a loyal American, and not an America hater like you) sure as hell don't want to give them security clearances! It means you'd better have an investigation, too. And no, McCarthy didn't identify them as communist - you're lying. He just pointed out that when asked if they were communist, they took the fifth. The people who did not take the fifth never had their names revealed. He specifically accused these people of treason: Howard McMurray, Mary Jane Keeney, John Service, Gustavo Duran, Julian Wadleigh, and Harlow Shapley. Mary Jane Keeney and Gutavo Duran WERE communist. Your concern for outed enemy agents is touching. What McCarthy was doing here was damning the State Department for taking steps that allowed and empowered the Communist to take over China, steps that McCarthy called "traitorous actions". He didn't specifically call them all traitors, though it was clear that some of them were indeed, working for the Communist party and using the power of the United States to bring about communism in other countries. McCarthy did NOT out them as communist, as you claim. He outed them for helping the communist enslave the people of China. He also gave additional names to the Senate -- 81 of them -- accusing them of communist "involvement." Some had, indeed, been communists during the '30s. Most had nothing to do with communism. First of all, so what if he shared that information with a senate committee. He IS a senator, after all. This did not "out" them, as their names were not made public. Secondly, 57 of the 81 were major communist, as identified in the Burns letter regarding State Department security investigations. So much for your "most" claims. The other 24 the evidence was such that it made them suspect, and they needed their clearances pulled, *as determined by the State Department*. The Senate was interested because it demonstrated how infiltrated the State Department was filled with your communist buddies. Although McCarthy did try in the early days to keep names private, he loosened his grip on that effort as he came under more political heat. Eventually, he was accusing everyone in sight. Oh, stop with your commie bull****. The only person he NAMED AS A COMMUNIST was indeed, a communist. Perhaps you're thinking of the House Un-American activities committee, which DID make mistakes. Another kettle of fish...and reptiles, amphibians, and bird-brains. And you remain confused even to this day. He knew something was going on, but he destroyed a lot of lives and careers because he really didn't care who he painted with his brush. Now I know you're talking about the HUAC. Senator McCarthy was a senator, not a member of the house. Nope. The McCarthy committee was a Senate committee. How dumb can you get! I pointed out that McCarthy was not a member of the house, which leads any rational person to the conclusion that he could not be a member of the HUAC, and you gibber on, seeming under the impression that the House Un American Activities Committee was a senate committee? Or do you even have to disagree on things that can't be disagreed on? No wonder you want the state to take care of you, it's pretty clear you lake the smarts to do so yourself. |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:18:41 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote: These people, who worked for the government, were summuned in secret sessions, told the situation as to why the committee believed they knew about communist in the government, and then questioned, and if they took the 5th, you think it's bad that McCarthy noted publically that 83 people said that they would not testify about communist in government because it would incriminate them? Too bad your commie agents were so stupid as to take the fifth. Gee, another clueless one showed up .... What do you do if called to a witchhunt? If you say ANYTHING it's ALL fair game for the hunters. You don't have to be guilty of ANYTHING to take the 5th. It's ALWAYS your right, unless you give it up by opening your mouth ..... sheesh -- Cliff |
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:18:41 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote: Mary Jane Keeney and Gutavo Duran WERE communist. So are you, probably. So what? -- Cliff |
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:18:41 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote: What McCarthy was doing here was damning the State Department for taking steps that allowed and empowered the Communist to take over China, steps that McCarthy called "traitorous actions". Mao & others were US State Department agents? Long before Nixon & McCarthy? Are you calling for Nixon to be hung? BTW, "Communism" is still doing just fine. -- Cliff |
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
... How dumb can you get! I pointed out that McCarthy was not a member of the house, which leads any rational person to the conclusion that he could not be a member of the HUAC, and you gibber on, seeming under the impression that the House Un American Activities Committee was a senate committee? What do you do, Stuart, make a compost pile of these messages and wait until they turn black before responding? I hardly remember this conversation. My recollection is that you said McCarthy could NOT have named communists, because he wasn't on the House Un-American Activities Committee. I pointed out that it was the Senate committee that named 83 of them. Now you seem to be spinning off in some other direction. Take your composted messages and go see if you can get something to grow in them, OK? I'm not following some whirling dervish around the barn. Hasta luego. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:18:41 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote: These people, who worked for the government, were summuned in secret sessions, told the situation as to why the committee believed they knew about communist in the government, and then questioned, and if they took the 5th, you think it's bad that McCarthy noted publically that 83 people said that they would not testify about communist in government because it would incriminate them? Too bad your commie agents were so stupid as to take the fifth. Gee, another clueless one showed up .... Another commie propagandist or useful idiot raises his ugly head. What do you do if called to a witchhunt? The difference between witches and communist is that communist exist, whitches don't. There really may BE communist in the government. You leftist managed to slander and lie about McCarthy and convince people that there were no communist and Soviet agents in the U.S. Government. We know now for a fact that there were. McCarthy, as I pointed out, was right. That being so, one has to ask, why are you still lying about it being a "witch hunt" (which implies that there were not) and, more importantly, since we didn't root out the commie *******s back in the 1950s because of a well planned commie propaganda campaign, why would they commies be gone now? Indeed, this is explains why people in Hollywood, the news media, and our educational system as well as in our government are much farther to the left than the general U.S. population. Thinking men know this. Liars like you try and cover it up, and tell really lame propaganda to cover for you commie buddies. If you say ANYTHING it's ALL fair game for the hunters. You don't have to be guilty of ANYTHING to take the 5th. So, this is your excuse for damning everything McCarthy did? Not only does it not follow, your stupid excuse isn't even right. The 5th says you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. Obviously, you cannot be made to testify against yourself when you, yourself, are on trial for a crime. Another instance is when you are testifying and to answer would incriminate yourself. There is no right to refuse to answer if what you have to say will NOT incriminate yourself. Further, you ignored, (a sure sign of a liar or propagandist) the fact that these people were in government jobs that required that they have background checks and obtain a clearance. There is no RIGHT to these jobs that enables them to hinder a background check. The government cannot prosecute them, but it sure as hell doesn't have to give them classified information, either. History shows that the State Department itself found that these people were questionable. It was the FDR/Truman administrations that protected them. Why? It's ALWAYS your right, unless you give it up by opening your mouth ..... sheesh Sheese yourself. You'd have more credibility if your rebuttals were not so stupid. |
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:18:41 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote: Mary Jane Keeney and Gutavo Duran WERE communist. So are you, probably. So what? You don't even realize how irrational that is, do you? People like you are why I have no faith in human nature and my respect for human intelligence is so low. If I am supporting McCarthy, and making the claim that we have a problem in that there are communist in our government, our media, and our educational systems, as evideced by: 1) The failed McCarthy and HUAC efforts to get them out. 2) The proven by the FBI that the threat was real. 3) The objective evidece that the media and our educational systems are far more to the left than the general public... Then only an idiot would conclude, as you did, that I am probably a communist. |
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:18:41 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote: What McCarthy was doing here was damning the State Department for taking steps that allowed and empowered the Communist to take over China, steps that McCarthy called "traitorous actions". Mao & others were US State Department agents? Long before Nixon & McCarthy? Again, your selective stupidity is showing. If you are incapable of determing what the meaning of what I said, that there were those in the U.S. State department that helped the communist in China take over, really means that Mao was in the U.S. State department, then you're a gibbering ape. Are you calling for Nixon to be hung? BTW, "Communism" is still doing just fine. I think that I may have just insulted apes... |
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stuart Grey wrote: Cliff wrote: On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:18:41 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote: These people, who worked for the government, were summuned in secret sessions, told the situation as to why the committee believed they knew about communist in the government, and then questioned, and if they took the 5th, you think it's bad that McCarthy noted publically that 83 people said that they would not testify about communist in government because it would incriminate them? Too bad your commie agents were so stupid as to take the fifth. Gee, another clueless one showed up .... Another commie propagandist or useful idiot raises his ugly head. What do you do if called to a witchhunt? The difference between witches and communist is that communist exist, whitches don't. There really may BE communist in the government. You leftist managed to slander and lie about McCarthy and convince people that there were no communist and Soviet agents in the U.S. Government. We know now for a fact that there were. McCarthy, as I pointed out, was right. That being so, one has to ask, why are you still lying about it being a "witch hunt" (which implies that there were not) and, more importantly, since we didn't root out the commie *******s back in the 1950s because of a well planned commie propaganda campaign, why would they commies be gone now? Indeed, this is explains why people in Hollywood, the news media, and our educational system as well as in our government are much farther to the left than the general U.S. population. Thinking men know this. Liars like you try and cover it up, and tell really lame propaganda to cover for you commie buddies. If you say ANYTHING it's ALL fair game for the hunters. You don't have to be guilty of ANYTHING to take the 5th. So, this is your excuse for damning everything McCarthy did? Not only does it not follow, your stupid excuse isn't even right. The 5th says you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. Obviously, you cannot be made to testify against yourself when you, yourself, are on trial for a crime. Another instance is when you are testifying and to answer would incriminate yourself. There is no right to refuse to answer if what you have to say will NOT incriminate yourself. As you're busy calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot....remember that if you answer ANYTHING, your right to take the 5th is eliminated beyond that point: You MUST answer all or nothing. This means that if you didn't take the 5th on a simple question, anything they would ask you about ANYONE else or ANYTHING else, not matter how stupid, pointed, distorted, leading, deceptively incriminating ("have you stopped beating your wife yet?") MUST be answered or you are in contempt. Condemming someone who took the 5th as "having something to hide" is as stupid as the whole McCarthy hearings were in the first place. Facist Germany would be proud of you. Koz Further, you ignored, (a sure sign of a liar or propagandist) the fact that these people were in government jobs that required that they have background checks and obtain a clearance. There is no RIGHT to these jobs that enables them to hinder a background check. The government cannot prosecute them, but it sure as hell doesn't have to give them classified information, either. History shows that the State Department itself found that these people were questionable. It was the FDR/Truman administrations that protected them. Why? It's ALWAYS your right, unless you give it up by opening your mouth ..... sheesh Sheese yourself. You'd have more credibility if your rebuttals were not so stupid. |
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:33:34 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote: What do you do if called to a witchhunt? The difference between witches and communist is that communist exist, whitches don't. There really may BE communist in the government. So WHAT? It's just another political party, same rights as everyone else, right? Consider the neocons trying to export THEIR stuff by force & murder .... from 40,000 feet ..... -- Cliff |
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:33:34 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote: That being so, one has to ask, why are you still lying about it being a "witch hunt" (which implies that there were not) and, more importantly, since we didn't root out the commie *******s back in the 1950s because of a well planned commie propaganda campaign, why would they commies be gone now? You are not very bright, right? Things like the early xtian churches were communism. That portion of government spending that's done on infrastructure & social programs is communism. The roads you drive on were paid for by communists, the social security benefits you may get are paid for by them as well, as is (in many places) the water you drink & the *clean* air that you breathe. -- Cliff |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Part P the reality. | UK diy | |||
| OT Guns more Guns | Metalworking | |||
| OT-John Kerry | Metalworking | |||
| Initial fill of new Propane tank fact or fiction on purge needed | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
