Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [pinoy_atheists] Re: HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI ATOM BOMBING

Expand Messages
  • eric sandy fernando
    my father told me that his dad died in the bataan death march :( jose mario sison wrote: While several of my Uncles were killed by the
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      my father told me that his dad died in the bataan death march :(


      jose mario sison <joma_sison@...> wrote:
      While several of my Uncles were killed by the Japanese Army for being with the resistant group, I should not forget that one of the reason of attacking the Philippines by the Japanese was the American military presence. That is not to say that their (US) presence was the Main reason.

      In addition, let us not forget that America occupied the Philippines after the mock Battle of Manila Bay. After that they systematically annihilate the remnants of Philippine revolution. I can only judge how cruel the Americans are basing from the present-days movies.

      Their rampage, murders and rape of the land was hidden from us. We remember the 4 years atrocities of the Japanese than the-more-than-40-year-war between USA and Phils.

      tekton12 <tekton12@...> wrote:
      According to wikipedia and various other sources I could find, an
      estimated 150,000 Japanese were killed by the nuking of Hiroshima and
      Nagasaki. This estimate includes deaths which ocurred years later due
      to the effects of radiation. By contrast, when the Japanese Imperial
      Army invaded Nanking China on Dec. 13, 1937, about 300,000 Chinese
      people died at the hands of the Japanese invaders. Many of the dead
      were civilians, many of them women who were raped and later
      massacred. This sordid episode has been called "The Rape of Nanking",
      which is also the title of a best-selling book documenting this event
      written by Iris Chang.

      How many Filipinos did the Japanese kill during World War 2? One
      estimate at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB3.1.GIF gives a
      figure as high as 200,000 Filipinos. My grandfather's brother was one
      such victim. He was executed in Fort San Pedro in Cebu City sometime
      in 1943 on suspicion of being a member of the resistance. My father
      used to tell stories of how he and his family hid in the hinterlands
      of Balamban, Cebu during the war to elude the Kempei Tai. Those were
      tough times indeed, and even today the war wounds have not totally
      healed. Many so-called Filipino "comfort women" (ie women who were
      turned into prostitutes to service the needs of Japanese soldiers)
      continue to cry out for justice.

      During the battle to liberate Manila which lasted a month from Feb. 3
      to March 3 1945, an estimated 100,000 Filipino civilians were killed
      by the retreating Japanese forces, and the entire city was leveled to
      the ground. The damage done and the number of casualties sustained
      were comparable to the damage and casualites resulting from the
      nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      From wikipedia:

      "R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of
      Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese
      military "murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most
      probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos,
      and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war.
      This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military
      strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture."[2]

      Was the dropping of the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
      If only the 10 million victims of Japanese aggression can speak from
      their graves.....

      tekton12

      PS I visited Japan several years ago as an exchange student sponsored
      by JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). I visted several
      cities and even lived with a Japanese family in Okinawa for a while.
      I also toured Hiroshima itself, and saw the famous Atomic Bomb Dome
      (a structure that remained standing after the bombing and has been
      converted into a peace memorial). The city is very beautiful and
      clean, with its well-manicured gardens and colorful flowers. The
      whole of Japan itself is a wonderful country, and is today one of the
      richest in the world. The size of Japan's economy is second only to
      that of the US. It is a country that believes in capitalism, science,
      and technology, and I admire it. The nuking of 2 Japanese cities
      during World War 2 may have been devastating to those who perished,
      but it certainly ended the war decisively and started Japan on a
      course towards modernity.


      ---------------------------------
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      ---------------------------------
      Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • kasanga_mo
      Hi Doug, We can understand attitudes, behaviors such as those, but then again, its the issue, that matters. we stick to what is the truth. Thanks for sharing
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Doug,

        We can understand attitudes, behaviors such as those, but then
        again, its the issue, that matters. we stick to what is the truth.
        Thanks for sharing those important points in history, appreciate
        it.

        cheers,
        /km
        --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, doug john
        <theadamfamilyoz@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Jose,
        >
        > Thanks for your post, even today there are a lot of Philippinos
        who do not realise the crimes committed against Philippinos by the
        American colonisers, I suppose history is not a popular subject in
        the schools here?
        >
        > Recently I quoted the opinions of several US top brass who were
        responsible for the conduct of the war on Japan, I especially drew
        attention to three : -
        >
        >
        > General Douglas MacArthur, the highest ranking officer in the
        Pacifc Theatre of war.
        > Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimits, Commander in Chief of the
        Pacifc fleet
        > Carl Spaatz Commander of the US Strategic Air Forces in the
        Pacific
        >
        > I also gave lists of several other high ranking military
        officers, scientists and prominent political entitites. These people
        have expresssed the view in their books and elsewhere that the use of
        atomc bombs on Japan was unecessary because the war was already won.
        I agreed with their conclusions.
        >
        >
        > However the response I got was that I was called a "Crabby Old
        Man" What my age has to do with anything I fail to understand.
        Crabby? Well that is up to other to judge but again I fail to
        understand what my personalty has got to do with my carefully
        reasoned opinion based on the above impeccable sources. To disagree
        with me is to disagree with almost the entire military command in the
        Pacific at the time so they must be "Crabby Old Men" too!
        >
        >
        > Since I have not had the advantage of a secondary or teritiary
        education could someone please explain what is the significance is of
        me being called a "Crabby Old Man." Is that an example of an "Ad
        Hominem?" wherein you attack the person as a way to avoid truth,
        science or logic which might otherwise prove you wrong? George Orwell
        the novelist, essayist and critic 1950 said 'Quote:Freedom is the
        right to tell people what they do not want to hear.Unquote. Would it
        be that my problem was I was saying something that was not wanted to
        be heard?
        >
        >
        > Of course just because I referred to these top ranking military
        highly educated personnel who were intimately involved and in charge
        of the war does not mean that their conclusions were the correct ones
        to be drawn, however I submit that they at least should be listened
        to. I know there is another point of view and that view is entitled
        to be expressed and listened to of course.
        >
        >
        > Most of the views supporting the the use of the atom bombs on
        Japan seem to be centered on retribution for Pearl Harbour and other
        Japanese crimes against humanity, like some sort of collective
        punishment . But what is the excuse now for using depleted uranium
        weapons in Iraq that cause radio active contamination that exists for
        up to a billion years? Ask some of the American Iraq veterans who are
        suffering from the effects of depleted uranium weaponry radiation,
        ask them what they think about the desirability of there use.
        >
        >
        > The Japanese war criminals should have been dealt with in the war
        crimes tribunal. the civilian men, women, children and babies that
        were incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little knowledge of
        the crimes that were being committed in their name. It seems to be a
        fact that all nationalitites cannot seem to accept that their fellow
        citizens are capable of inhuman acts, the Germans did not believe it,
        some still do not, the British do not believe their solders are
        capable of cruel acts. The Americans are no exception to this
        syndrome and seem to be blissfully unaware of the crimes against
        humanity that have been committed in their name in over forty
        countries since the end of World War Two. If they are aware of these
        crimes they manage to dismiss or rationalized them.
        >
        >
        > The use of the atom bombs on Japan was an act of violence. Quote'
        You have to show violence the way it is, if you don't show it
        realistically then that's immoral and hurtful. If you don't upset
        people the that's obscenity" Roman Polanski Unquote.
        >
        >
        > Is the any point in discussing history? That was what I was
        discussing, History! Is that a crime? If that is true then many
        centres of learning world wide must likewise be gulty! Libraries all
        over the world are filled with books on history as is the internet!
        Are they all gulty of some crime?
        >
        >
        > One can discuss history in a search for knowledge for knowledge
        sake. History can also be studied to learn lessons in order to avoid
        mistakes now and in the future. Before the invasion and occupation of
        Iraq, the American Administration would have done well to read,
        (except the Bush doesn't read he just seeks guidance from God) and
        thereby learned the historical lesson of Vietnam where they killed
        three million Vietnamese with napalm, Agent orange and carpet
        bombing, all for nothing but the desire to dominate and even then
        they failed!
        >
        >
        > When will these Christian gentlemen ever learn? They recently set
        the Middle East on fire and not being satisfied with that are
        planning to attack Iran, Syria and North Korea. When will they stop
        interfering in other countries by military invasions and threats and
        instead use negotiation as a means of settling disputes?
        >
        >
        > If it were not for the invention of small digital cameras the
        crimes of Abu Graib prison would never have been known by the
        America people and the world. Some of the pictures thus taken have
        never been revealed anyway, they are too horrible and presumably
        involve the torture of women. Even now the rapes, pillaging and cold
        blooded murders that are taking place as we speak in Iraq by American
        soldiers are hardly in the minds of the American public. It is a 'No
        No' to mention these crimes in polite circles because this would
        upset the patriotic sensibilities of some Americans. Images like
        that film clip of a little girl running away naked from a napalm bomb
        attack in Vietnam with strips of burnt skin hanging off her little
        body are suppressed now by the US military has being anti-war
        propaganda.
        >
        >
        > For instance on the 29th of March, 1971. Lt Willan Calley was
        found guilty of the murder of at least twenty two Vietnamese
        civilians at My Lai. Men, women, children and babies were forced into
        a ditch and murdered in cold blood on the orders of Calley. He was
        sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour. So justice was done
        yes? No it was not! Two days after Calley received the sentence he
        was ordered to be kept in comfort in home detention by President
        Richard Nixon. He was released shortly afterwards and the last I
        heard he was the owner of a video store in Claifornia.
        >
        >
        > In his defence he said nobody in the military system ever
        described them as anything other that they were Communists, they
        didn't give it a sex or a race in other words the Vietnamese as a
        race had been demonised.
        >
        > :
        > Lt. Calley got support from a large section of the American
        public. the America legion raised thousand of dollars for his
        defence.The prosecutor Aubrey Daniels wrote a much publicised letter
        to Presiden Nixon critizing him for releasing Calley to house arrest.
        He said" ...How shocking it is if so many people across this nation
        have failed to see the the moral issue.. ..that it is unlawful for an
        American soldier to summarily execute unarmed and unresistng men
        women and babies.
        >
        >
        > This sort of thing is not unique to American troops. Becoming an
        unwanted occupation force in foreign countries robs some military of
        their humanity and they are prone to commit crimes like that in
        Haditha and other places in Iraq. Politicians who contemplate
        attacking and occupying other countries would do well to learn the
        lessons of history and pause to consider other ways to settle
        disputes.
        >
        >
        > Why mention these pieces of history now? Well I believe they
        should be mentioned frquentlyf or the following reasons: -
        >
        >
        > History should be recorded and be remembered well in an attempt
        of avoid a repeat of mistakes.
        >
        > It is wrong to assume that those of your nationality will not act
        cruelly in certain conditions
        >
        > If you demonise people be it as Communists, Jews, Arabs or
        Moslems, acts of inhumanity will follow.
        >
        > If you brainwash troops into thinking that the Iraqi's were to
        blame for 9/11 (which was alleged as one of the descredited reasons
        to attack Iraq, but since denied by dubya as not true) Then put them
        in harms way in the presumed gulty country i.e. Iraq and you now have
        a receipe for atrocities to be committed.
        >
        >
        > Quote The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities
        committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even
        hearing about them Unquote: George Orwell.
        >
        >
        > Please let us all try and be exceptions to George Orwells
        quotation. Regards Doug Adam.
        >
        >
      • doug john
        Dear kasanga mo, Thanks for that I appreciate your comment a lot. Actually it does not worry me when my detractors turn to insults, in fact it makes me feel
        Message 3 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear kasanga mo,

          Thanks for that I appreciate your comment a lot. Actually it does not worry me when my detractors turn to insults, in fact it makes me feel good that they have no comeback on the substance of my views. The other benifit of such derogatory remarks are that they give "More Grist to my Mill"

          Thanks again I really am grateful for your view.

          Warm regards Doug Adam




          kasanga_mo <kasanga_mo@...> wrote:


          Hi Doug,

          We can understand attitudes, behaviors such as those, but then
          again, its the issue, that matters. we stick to what is the truth.
          Thanks for sharing those important points in history, appreciate
          it.

          cheers,
          /km
          --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, doug john
          <theadamfamilyoz@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Jose,
          >
          > Thanks for your post, even today there are a lot of Philippinos
          who do not realise the crimes committed against Philippinos by the
          American colonisers, I suppose history is not a popular subject in
          the schools here?
          >
          > Recently I quoted the opinions of several US top brass who were
          responsible for the conduct of the war on Japan, I especially drew
          attention to three : -
          >
          >
          > General Douglas MacArthur, the highest ranking officer in the
          Pacifc Theatre of war.
          > Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimits, Commander in Chief of the
          Pacifc fleet
          > Carl Spaatz Commander of the US Strategic Air Forces in the
          Pacific
          >
          > I also gave lists of several other high ranking military
          officers, scientists and prominent political entitites. These people
          have expresssed the view in their books and elsewhere that the use of
          atomc bombs on Japan was unecessary because the war was already won.
          I agreed with their conclusions.
          >
          >
          > However the response I got was that I was called a "Crabby Old
          Man" What my age has to do with anything I fail to understand.
          Crabby? Well that is up to other to judge but again I fail to
          understand what my personalty has got to do with my carefully
          reasoned opinion based on the above impeccable sources. To disagree
          with me is to disagree with almost the entire military command in the
          Pacific at the time so they must be "Crabby Old Men" too!
          >
          >
          > Since I have not had the advantage of a secondary or teritiary
          education could someone please explain what is the significance is of
          me being called a "Crabby Old Man." Is that an example of an "Ad
          Hominem?" wherein you attack the person as a way to avoid truth,
          science or logic which might otherwise prove you wrong? George Orwell
          the novelist, essayist and critic 1950 said 'Quote:Freedom is the
          right to tell people what they do not want to hear.Unquote. Would it
          be that my problem was I was saying something that was not wanted to
          be heard?
          >
          >
          > Of course just because I referred to these top ranking military
          highly educated personnel who were intimately involved and in charge
          of the war does not mean that their conclusions were the correct ones
          to be drawn, however I submit that they at least should be listened
          to. I know there is another point of view and that view is entitled
          to be expressed and listened to of course.
          >
          >
          > Most of the views supporting the the use of the atom bombs on
          Japan seem to be centered on retribution for Pearl Harbour and other
          Japanese crimes against humanity, like some sort of collective
          punishment . But what is the excuse now for using depleted uranium
          weapons in Iraq that cause radio active contamination that exists for
          up to a billion years? Ask some of the American Iraq veterans who are
          suffering from the effects of depleted uranium weaponry radiation,
          ask them what they think about the desirability of there use.
          >
          >
          > The Japanese war criminals should have been dealt with in the war
          crimes tribunal. the civilian men, women, children and babies that
          were incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little knowledge of
          the crimes that were being committed in their name. It seems to be a
          fact that all nationalitites cannot seem to accept that their fellow
          citizens are capable of inhuman acts, the Germans did not believe it,
          some still do not, the British do not believe their solders are
          capable of cruel acts. The Americans are no exception to this
          syndrome and seem to be blissfully unaware of the crimes against
          humanity that have been committed in their name in over forty
          countries since the end of World War Two. If they are aware of these
          crimes they manage to dismiss or rationalized them.
          >
          >
          > The use of the atom bombs on Japan was an act of violence. Quote'
          You have to show violence the way it is, if you don't show it
          realistically then that's immoral and hurtful. If you don't upset
          people the that's obscenity" Roman Polanski Unquote.
          >
          >
          > Is the any point in discussing history? That was what I was
          discussing, History! Is that a crime? If that is true then many
          centres of learning world wide must likewise be gulty! Libraries all
          over the world are filled with books on history as is the internet!
          Are they all gulty of some crime?
          >
          >
          > One can discuss history in a search for knowledge for knowledge
          sake. History can also be studied to learn lessons in order to avoid
          mistakes now and in the future. Before the invasion and occupation of
          Iraq, the American Administration would have done well to read,
          (except the Bush doesn't read he just seeks guidance from God) and
          thereby learned the historical lesson of Vietnam where they killed
          three million Vietnamese with napalm, Agent orange and carpet
          bombing, all for nothing but the desire to dominate and even then
          they failed!
          >
          >
          > When will these Christian gentlemen ever learn? They recently set
          the Middle East on fire and not being satisfied with that are
          planning to attack Iran, Syria and North Korea. When will they stop
          interfering in other countries by military invasions and threats and
          instead use negotiation as a means of settling disputes?
          >
          >
          > If it were not for the invention of small digital cameras the
          crimes of Abu Graib prison would never have been known by the
          America people and the world. Some of the pictures thus taken have
          never been revealed anyway, they are too horrible and presumably
          involve the torture of women. Even now the rapes, pillaging and cold
          blooded murders that are taking place as we speak in Iraq by American
          soldiers are hardly in the minds of the American public. It is a 'No
          No' to mention these crimes in polite circles because this would
          upset the patriotic sensibilities of some Americans. Images like
          that film clip of a little girl running away naked from a napalm bomb
          attack in Vietnam with strips of burnt skin hanging off her little
          body are suppressed now by the US military has being anti-war
          propaganda.
          >
          >
          > For instance on the 29th of March, 1971. Lt Willan Calley was
          found guilty of the murder of at least twenty two Vietnamese
          civilians at My Lai. Men, women, children and babies were forced into
          a ditch and murdered in cold blood on the orders of Calley. He was
          sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour. So justice was done
          yes? No it was not! Two days after Calley received the sentence he
          was ordered to be kept in comfort in home detention by President
          Richard Nixon. He was released shortly afterwards and the last I
          heard he was the owner of a video store in Claifornia.
          >
          >
          > In his defence he said nobody in the military system ever
          described them as anything other that they were Communists, they
          didn't give it a sex or a race in other words the Vietnamese as a
          race had been demonised.
          >
          > :
          > Lt. Calley got support from a large section of the American
          public. the America legion raised thousand of dollars for his
          defence.The prosecutor Aubrey Daniels wrote a much publicised letter
          to Presiden Nixon critizing him for releasing Calley to house arrest.
          He said" ...How shocking it is if so many people across this nation
          have failed to see the the moral issue.. ..that it is unlawful for an
          American soldier to summarily execute unarmed and unresistng men
          women and babies.
          >
          >
          > This sort of thing is not unique to American troops. Becoming an
          unwanted occupation force in foreign countries robs some military of
          their humanity and they are prone to commit crimes like that in
          Haditha and other places in Iraq. Politicians who contemplate
          attacking and occupying other countries would do well to learn the
          lessons of history and pause to consider other ways to settle
          disputes.
          >
          >
          > Why mention these pieces of history now? Well I believe they
          should be mentioned frquentlyf or the following reasons: -
          >
          >
          > History should be recorded and be remembered well in an attempt
          of avoid a repeat of mistakes.
          >
          > It is wrong to assume that those of your nationality will not act
          cruelly in certain conditions
          >
          > If you demonise people be it as Communists, Jews, Arabs or
          Moslems, acts of inhumanity will follow.
          >
          > If you brainwash troops into thinking that the Iraqi's were to
          blame for 9/11 (which was alleged as one of the descredited reasons
          to attack Iraq, but since denied by dubya as not true) Then put them
          in harms way in the presumed gulty country i.e. Iraq and you now have
          a receipe for atrocities to be committed.
          >
          >
          > Quote The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities
          committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even
          hearing about them Unquote: George Orwell.
          >
          >
          > Please let us all try and be exceptions to George Orwells
          quotation. Regards Doug Adam.
          >
          >






          ---------------------------------
          On Yahoo!7
          Check out PS Trixi - The hot new online adventure

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Romeo Macapobre
          what is grist to my mill? max ... -- apprenons francais [rmacapobre-french.blogspot.com]. apprenons max [rmacapobre.blogspot.com]. [Non-text portions of this
          Message 4 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            what is grist to my mill?
            max

            2006/9/6, doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>:
            >
            > Dear kasanga mo,
            >
            > Thanks for that I appreciate your comment a lot. Actually it does not
            > worry me when my detractors turn to insults, in fact it makes me feel good
            > that they have no comeback on the substance of my views. The other benifit
            > of such derogatory remarks are that they give "More Grist to my Mill"
            >
            > Thanks again I really am grateful for your view.
            >
            > Warm regards Doug Adam
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > kasanga_mo <kasanga_mo@... <kasanga_mo%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Hi Doug,
            >
            > We can understand attitudes, behaviors such as those, but then
            > again, its the issue, that matters. we stick to what is the truth.
            > Thanks for sharing those important points in history, appreciate
            > it.
            >
            > cheers,
            > /km
            > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com <pinoy_atheists%40yahoogroups.com>,
            > doug john
            > <theadamfamilyoz@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Dear Jose,
            > >
            > > Thanks for your post, even today there are a lot of Philippinos
            > who do not realise the crimes committed against Philippinos by the
            > American colonisers, I suppose history is not a popular subject in
            > the schools here?
            > >
            > > Recently I quoted the opinions of several US top brass who were
            > responsible for the conduct of the war on Japan, I especially drew
            > attention to three : -
            > >
            > >
            > > General Douglas MacArthur, the highest ranking officer in the
            > Pacifc Theatre of war.
            > > Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimits, Commander in Chief of the
            > Pacifc fleet
            > > Carl Spaatz Commander of the US Strategic Air Forces in the
            > Pacific
            > >
            > > I also gave lists of several other high ranking military
            > officers, scientists and prominent political entitites. These people
            > have expresssed the view in their books and elsewhere that the use of
            > atomc bombs on Japan was unecessary because the war was already won.
            > I agreed with their conclusions.
            > >
            > >
            > > However the response I got was that I was called a "Crabby Old
            > Man" What my age has to do with anything I fail to understand.
            > Crabby? Well that is up to other to judge but again I fail to
            > understand what my personalty has got to do with my carefully
            > reasoned opinion based on the above impeccable sources. To disagree
            > with me is to disagree with almost the entire military command in the
            > Pacific at the time so they must be "Crabby Old Men" too!
            > >
            > >
            > > Since I have not had the advantage of a secondary or teritiary
            > education could someone please explain what is the significance is of
            > me being called a "Crabby Old Man." Is that an example of an "Ad
            > Hominem?" wherein you attack the person as a way to avoid truth,
            > science or logic which might otherwise prove you wrong? George Orwell
            > the novelist, essayist and critic 1950 said 'Quote:Freedom is the
            > right to tell people what they do not want to hear.Unquote. Would it
            > be that my problem was I was saying something that was not wanted to
            > be heard?
            > >
            > >
            > > Of course just because I referred to these top ranking military
            > highly educated personnel who were intimately involved and in charge
            > of the war does not mean that their conclusions were the correct ones
            > to be drawn, however I submit that they at least should be listened
            > to. I know there is another point of view and that view is entitled
            > to be expressed and listened to of course.
            > >
            > >
            > > Most of the views supporting the the use of the atom bombs on
            > Japan seem to be centered on retribution for Pearl Harbour and other
            > Japanese crimes against humanity, like some sort of collective
            > punishment . But what is the excuse now for using depleted uranium
            > weapons in Iraq that cause radio active contamination that exists for
            > up to a billion years? Ask some of the American Iraq veterans who are
            > suffering from the effects of depleted uranium weaponry radiation,
            > ask them what they think about the desirability of there use.
            > >
            > >
            > > The Japanese war criminals should have been dealt with in the war
            > crimes tribunal. the civilian men, women, children and babies that
            > were incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little knowledge of
            > the crimes that were being committed in their name. It seems to be a
            > fact that all nationalitites cannot seem to accept that their fellow
            > citizens are capable of inhuman acts, the Germans did not believe it,
            > some still do not, the British do not believe their solders are
            > capable of cruel acts. The Americans are no exception to this
            > syndrome and seem to be blissfully unaware of the crimes against
            > humanity that have been committed in their name in over forty
            > countries since the end of World War Two. If they are aware of these
            > crimes they manage to dismiss or rationalized them.
            > >
            > >
            > > The use of the atom bombs on Japan was an act of violence. Quote'
            > You have to show violence the way it is, if you don't show it
            > realistically then that's immoral and hurtful. If you don't upset
            > people the that's obscenity" Roman Polanski Unquote.
            > >
            > >
            > > Is the any point in discussing history? That was what I was
            > discussing, History! Is that a crime? If that is true then many
            > centres of learning world wide must likewise be gulty! Libraries all
            > over the world are filled with books on history as is the internet!
            > Are they all gulty of some crime?
            > >
            > >
            > > One can discuss history in a search for knowledge for knowledge
            > sake. History can also be studied to learn lessons in order to avoid
            > mistakes now and in the future. Before the invasion and occupation of
            > Iraq, the American Administration would have done well to read,
            > (except the Bush doesn't read he just seeks guidance from God) and
            > thereby learned the historical lesson of Vietnam where they killed
            > three million Vietnamese with napalm, Agent orange and carpet
            > bombing, all for nothing but the desire to dominate and even then
            > they failed!
            > >
            > >
            > > When will these Christian gentlemen ever learn? They recently set
            > the Middle East on fire and not being satisfied with that are
            > planning to attack Iran, Syria and North Korea. When will they stop
            > interfering in other countries by military invasions and threats and
            > instead use negotiation as a means of settling disputes?
            > >
            > >
            > > If it were not for the invention of small digital cameras the
            > crimes of Abu Graib prison would never have been known by the
            > America people and the world. Some of the pictures thus taken have
            > never been revealed anyway, they are too horrible and presumably
            > involve the torture of women. Even now the rapes, pillaging and cold
            > blooded murders that are taking place as we speak in Iraq by American
            > soldiers are hardly in the minds of the American public. It is a 'No
            > No' to mention these crimes in polite circles because this would
            > upset the patriotic sensibilities of some Americans. Images like
            > that film clip of a little girl running away naked from a napalm bomb
            > attack in Vietnam with strips of burnt skin hanging off her little
            > body are suppressed now by the US military has being anti-war
            > propaganda.
            > >
            > >
            > > For instance on the 29th of March, 1971. Lt Willan Calley was
            > found guilty of the murder of at least twenty two Vietnamese
            > civilians at My Lai. Men, women, children and babies were forced into
            > a ditch and murdered in cold blood on the orders of Calley. He was
            > sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour. So justice was done
            > yes? No it was not! Two days after Calley received the sentence he
            > was ordered to be kept in comfort in home detention by President
            > Richard Nixon. He was released shortly afterwards and the last I
            > heard he was the owner of a video store in Claifornia.
            > >
            > >
            > > In his defence he said nobody in the military system ever
            > described them as anything other that they were Communists, they
            > didn't give it a sex or a race in other words the Vietnamese as a
            > race had been demonised.
            > >
            > > :
            > > Lt. Calley got support from a large section of the American
            > public. the America legion raised thousand of dollars for his
            > defence.The prosecutor Aubrey Daniels wrote a much publicised letter
            > to Presiden Nixon critizing him for releasing Calley to house arrest.
            > He said" ...How shocking it is if so many people across this nation
            > have failed to see the the moral issue.. ..that it is unlawful for an
            > American soldier to summarily execute unarmed and unresistng men
            > women and babies.
            > >
            > >
            > > This sort of thing is not unique to American troops. Becoming an
            > unwanted occupation force in foreign countries robs some military of
            > their humanity and they are prone to commit crimes like that in
            > Haditha and other places in Iraq. Politicians who contemplate
            > attacking and occupying other countries would do well to learn the
            > lessons of history and pause to consider other ways to settle
            > disputes.
            > >
            > >
            > > Why mention these pieces of history now? Well I believe they
            > should be mentioned frquentlyf or the following reasons: -
            > >
            > >
            > > History should be recorded and be remembered well in an attempt
            > of avoid a repeat of mistakes.
            > >
            > > It is wrong to assume that those of your nationality will not act
            > cruelly in certain conditions
            > >
            > > If you demonise people be it as Communists, Jews, Arabs or
            > Moslems, acts of inhumanity will follow.
            > >
            > > If you brainwash troops into thinking that the Iraqi's were to
            > blame for 9/11 (which was alleged as one of the descredited reasons
            > to attack Iraq, but since denied by dubya as not true) Then put them
            > in harms way in the presumed gulty country i.e. Iraq and you now have
            > a receipe for atrocities to be committed.
            > >
            > >
            > > Quote The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities
            > committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even
            > hearing about them Unquote: George Orwell.
            > >
            > >
            > > Please let us all try and be exceptions to George Orwells
            > quotation. Regards Doug Adam.
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > On Yahoo!7
            > Check out PS Trixi - The hot new online adventure
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >



            --
            apprenons francais [rmacapobre-french.blogspot.com].
            apprenons max [rmacapobre.blogspot.com].


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • doug john
            Dear Romeo, Grist is the product after milling Grain, in other words by putting further arguments in the debate the product is more ammuntion to fire.Sorry
            Message 5 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Romeo,

              Grist is the product after milling Grain, in other words by putting further arguments in the debate the product is more ammuntion to fire.Sorry about that I should stop using sayings used in England

              Warm regards Doug Adam.



              Romeo Macapobre <romeo.macapobre@...> wrote:
              what is grist to my mill?
              max

              2006/9/6, doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>:
              >
              > Dear kasanga mo,
              >
              > Thanks for that I appreciate your comment a lot. Actually it does not
              > worry me when my detractors turn to insults, in fact it makes me feel good
              > that they have no comeback on the substance of my views. The other benifit
              > of such derogatory remarks are that they give "More Grist to my Mill"
              >
              > Thanks again I really am grateful for your view.
              >
              > Warm regards Doug Adam
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > kasanga_mo <kasanga_mo@... <kasanga_mo%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Hi Doug,
              >
              > We can understand attitudes, behaviors such as those, but then
              > again, its the issue, that matters. we stick to what is the truth.
              > Thanks for sharing those important points in history, appreciate
              > it.
              >
              > cheers,
              > /km
              > --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com <pinoy_atheists%40yahoogroups.com>,
              > doug john
              > <theadamfamilyoz@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Dear Jose,
              > >
              > > Thanks for your post, even today there are a lot of Philippinos
              > who do not realise the crimes committed against Philippinos by the
              > American colonisers, I suppose history is not a popular subject in
              > the schools here?
              > >
              > > Recently I quoted the opinions of several US top brass who were
              > responsible for the conduct of the war on Japan, I especially drew
              > attention to three : -
              > >
              > >
              > > General Douglas MacArthur, the highest ranking officer in the
              > Pacifc Theatre of war.
              > > Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimits, Commander in Chief of the
              > Pacifc fleet
              > > Carl Spaatz Commander of the US Strategic Air Forces in the
              > Pacific
              > >
              > > I also gave lists of several other high ranking military
              > officers, scientists and prominent political entitites. These people
              > have expresssed the view in their books and elsewhere that the use of
              > atomc bombs on Japan was unecessary because the war was already won.
              > I agreed with their conclusions.
              > >
              > >
              > > However the response I got was that I was called a "Crabby Old
              > Man" What my age has to do with anything I fail to understand.
              > Crabby? Well that is up to other to judge but again I fail to
              > understand what my personalty has got to do with my carefully
              > reasoned opinion based on the above impeccable sources. To disagree
              > with me is to disagree with almost the entire military command in the
              > Pacific at the time so they must be "Crabby Old Men" too!
              > >
              > >
              > > Since I have not had the advantage of a secondary or teritiary
              > education could someone please explain what is the significance is of
              > me being called a "Crabby Old Man." Is that an example of an "Ad
              > Hominem?" wherein you attack the person as a way to avoid truth,
              > science or logic which might otherwise prove you wrong? George Orwell
              > the novelist, essayist and critic 1950 said 'Quote:Freedom is the
              > right to tell people what they do not want to hear.Unquote. Would it
              > be that my problem was I was saying something that was not wanted to
              > be heard?
              > >
              > >
              > > Of course just because I referred to these top ranking military
              > highly educated personnel who were intimately involved and in charge
              > of the war does not mean that their conclusions were the correct ones
              > to be drawn, however I submit that they at least should be listened
              > to. I know there is another point of view and that view is entitled
              > to be expressed and listened to of course.
              > >
              > >
              > > Most of the views supporting the the use of the atom bombs on
              > Japan seem to be centered on retribution for Pearl Harbour and other
              > Japanese crimes against humanity, like some sort of collective
              > punishment . But what is the excuse now for using depleted uranium
              > weapons in Iraq that cause radio active contamination that exists for
              > up to a billion years? Ask some of the American Iraq veterans who are
              > suffering from the effects of depleted uranium weaponry radiation,
              > ask them what they think about the desirability of there use.
              > >
              > >
              > > The Japanese war criminals should have been dealt with in the war
              > crimes tribunal. the civilian men, women, children and babies that
              > were incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little knowledge of
              > the crimes that were being committed in their name. It seems to be a
              > fact that all nationalitites cannot seem to accept that their fellow
              > citizens are capable of inhuman acts, the Germans did not believe it,
              > some still do not, the British do not believe their solders are
              > capable of cruel acts. The Americans are no exception to this
              > syndrome and seem to be blissfully unaware of the crimes against
              > humanity that have been committed in their name in over forty
              > countries since the end of World War Two. If they are aware of these
              > crimes they manage to dismiss or rationalized them.
              > >
              > >
              > > The use of the atom bombs on Japan was an act of violence. Quote'
              > You have to show violence the way it is, if you don't show it
              > realistically then that's immoral and hurtful. If you don't upset
              > people the that's obscenity" Roman Polanski Unquote.
              > >
              > >
              > > Is the any point in discussing history? That was what I was
              > discussing, History! Is that a crime? If that is true then many
              > centres of learning world wide must likewise be gulty! Libraries all
              > over the world are filled with books on history as is the internet!
              > Are they all gulty of some crime?
              > >
              > >
              > > One can discuss history in a search for knowledge for knowledge
              > sake. History can also be studied to learn lessons in order to avoid
              > mistakes now and in the future. Before the invasion and occupation of
              > Iraq, the American Administration would have done well to read,
              > (except the Bush doesn't read he just seeks guidance from God) and
              > thereby learned the historical lesson of Vietnam where they killed
              > three million Vietnamese with napalm, Agent orange and carpet
              > bombing, all for nothing but the desire to dominate and even then
              > they failed!
              > >
              > >
              > > When will these Christian gentlemen ever learn? They recently set
              > the Middle East on fire and not being satisfied with that are
              > planning to attack Iran, Syria and North Korea. When will they stop
              > interfering in other countries by military invasions and threats and
              > instead use negotiation as a means of settling disputes?
              > >
              > >
              > > If it were not for the invention of small digital cameras the
              > crimes of Abu Graib prison would never have been known by the
              > America people and the world. Some of the pictures thus taken have
              > never been revealed anyway, they are too horrible and presumably
              > involve the torture of women. Even now the rapes, pillaging and cold
              > blooded murders that are taking place as we speak in Iraq by American
              > soldiers are hardly in the minds of the American public. It is a 'No
              > No' to mention these crimes in polite circles because this would
              > upset the patriotic sensibilities of some Americans. Images like
              > that film clip of a little girl running away naked from a napalm bomb
              > attack in Vietnam with strips of burnt skin hanging off her little
              > body are suppressed now by the US military has being anti-war
              > propaganda.
              > >
              > >
              > > For instance on the 29th of March, 1971. Lt Willan Calley was
              > found guilty of the murder of at least twenty two Vietnamese
              > civilians at My Lai. Men, women, children and babies were forced into
              > a ditch and murdered in cold blood on the orders of Calley. He was
              > sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour. So justice was done
              > yes? No it was not! Two days after Calley received the sentence he
              > was ordered to be kept in comfort in home detention by President
              > Richard Nixon. He was released shortly afterwards and the last I
              > heard he was the owner of a video store in Claifornia.
              > >
              > >
              > > In his defence he said nobody in the military system ever
              > described them as anything other that they were Communists, they
              > didn't give it a sex or a race in other words the Vietnamese as a
              > race had been demonised.
              > >
              > > :
              > > Lt. Calley got support from a large section of the American
              > public. the America legion raised thousand of dollars for his
              > defence.The prosecutor Aubrey Daniels wrote a much publicised letter
              > to Presiden Nixon critizing him for releasing Calley to house arrest.
              > He said" ...How shocking it is if so many people across this nation
              > have failed to see the the moral issue.. ..that it is unlawful for an
              > American soldier to summarily execute unarmed and unresistng men
              > women and babies.
              > >
              > >
              > > This sort of thing is not unique to American troops. Becoming an
              > unwanted occupation force in foreign countries robs some military of
              > their humanity and they are prone to commit crimes like that in
              > Haditha and other places in Iraq. Politicians who contemplate
              > attacking and occupying other countries would do well to learn the
              > lessons of history and pause to consider other ways to settle
              > disputes.
              > >
              > >
              > > Why mention these pieces of history now? Well I believe they
              > should be mentioned frquentlyf or the following reasons: -
              > >
              > >
              > > History should be recorded and be remembered well in an attempt
              > of avoid a repeat of mistakes.
              > >
              > > It is wrong to assume that those of your nationality will not act
              > cruelly in certain conditions
              > >
              > > If you demonise people be it as Communists, Jews, Arabs or
              > Moslems, acts of inhumanity will follow.
              > >
              > > If you brainwash troops into thinking that the Iraqi's were to
              > blame for 9/11 (which was alleged as one of the descredited reasons
              > to attack Iraq, but since denied by dubya as not true) Then put them
              > in harms way in the presumed gulty country i.e. Iraq and you now have
              > a receipe for atrocities to be committed.
              > >
              > >
              > > Quote The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities
              > committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even
              > hearing about them Unquote: George Orwell.
              > >
              > >
              > > Please let us all try and be exceptions to George Orwells
              > quotation. Regards Doug Adam.
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > On Yahoo!7
              > Check out PS Trixi - The hot new online adventure
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >

              --
              apprenons francais [rmacapobre-french.blogspot.com].
              apprenons max [rmacapobre.blogspot.com].

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






              ---------------------------------
              On Yahoo!7
              The new TV home page features highlights, popular picks, and the best of homemade TV

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Misterrific
              ... appreciate ... Hi kasangamo, I agree with your analysis. Attitude should come secondary behind the actual issues and truth. Anyway, since you expressed
              Message 6 of 16 , Sep 6, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "kasanga_mo" <kasanga_mo@...>
                wrote:

                > Hi Doug,
                >
                > We can understand attitudes, behaviors such as those, but then
                > again, its the issue, that matters. we stick to what is the truth.
                > Thanks for sharing those important points in history,
                appreciate
                > it.
                >
                > cheers,
                > /km

                Hi kasangamo,

                I agree with your analysis. Attitude should come secondary behind
                the actual issues and truth. Anyway, since you expressed your
                appreciation (or perhaps even admiration) to old man Doug's
                pontification, let's assess the truth that he likes to peddle in our
                forum, shall we?

                Doug says:
                ===============
                "The first casualty when war comes is truth,"
                The above quotation has been attributed to many but is still no less
                the truth, especially in relation to the atomic bombing of Japan and
                lately the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
                =================

                You're a Christian, right? Would I be correct to assume that you
                believe in absolute truth? If truth is absolute, how can it ever be
                a casualty? People can beat each other silly but the truth remains
                the truthÂ… if we are to subscribe in absolute truth. Would it be
                fair for me to assume that given the horrors committed by your
                Christian predecessors, you still believe that the truth of your
                (Christian) faith still remains?

                Doug says:
                =================
                History it has been said is written by the Victors, but not for the
                independently minded who seek the truth even though it might hurt
                patriotic sensibilities. Was it really necessary to atomic bomb
                Japan? Consider these facts: -
                =================

                Being independent minded is good. The continual desire to seek after
                truth is great! But by what standard would one gauge this truth that
                one seeks? Being independent minded would not be enough to establish
                truth. Otherwise, we would run the risk of having truth to be
                arbitrary to our "independent minds".

                Okay, let's consider Doug's "facts". I won't bother pasting them
                here; you can just go back to his "facts" in his original post.

                Now tell me, what facts do we have from Doug's list? What I can see
                from Doug's message is the fact that many prominent figures at the
                time seem to have believed that the use of the Atom Bomb was not
                necessary. Doug even took great lengths to quote from some of these
                prominent figures. Great! Now what does he say about the other side?

                Doug says:
                ==================
                These people were not Peaceniks, Socialists or Liberals but staunch
                Patriotic American Conservative military, political and scientific
                personnel who rejected the official political spin doctors line that
                the use of the bomb was in order to save lives and bring a quick end
                to the war.
                ==================

                "Official political spin doctor line"? Where can we see the facts
                about this "spin doctor line" from Doug's message? Did he mention or
                show figures, estimates, and justification from the other side? Did
                he bother to show "facts" from the other side? Did he quote any of
                the other side's justification?

                Doug further says:
                ==================
                It has been revealed that the true reasons for dropping the Atom
                bombs on Japan were (1) as the first shot in the Cold War. (2) As an
                experiment to observe the effects on humans and buildings
                ==================

                When and where has these two "true" reasons been revealed?
                Officially? Who revealed these? What else do we know about these?
                How credible would the sources be?

                World War 2 historian, Richard B. Frank, in his article posted in
                the Weekly Standard, entitled:

                "Why Truman Dropped the Bomb
                From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now
                have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision."

                Frank pretty much demolishes Doug's "facts" and "true reasons". It
                is a fairly long read but if you appreciate facts then I think you
                would find his article very illuminating. Here, do check it out:

                http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?
                idArticle=5894

                Now, would it be okay to consider some more "facts" from the other
                side? Okay, let's lay them down. Consider these info from
                http://centurychina.com/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm
                =======================
                The Magic summaries and the Ultra intercepts of German
                communications) were one of the key reasons that the Allies were
                able to foil the Axis plans of world domination. Only six Americans
                were authorized to read these intercepts. Of these six men, only one
                was elected. That was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he did
                not see, nor did he read, everything. The other policy-making
                recipients of Magic were: Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson,
                Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox,
                the chief of naval operations (the last being Adm. E.J. King) and
                Gen. George Marshall, the Army chief of staff. The most important of
                these decision makers was Gen. Marshall.

                ...

                Marshall also knew prior to the February 1945 Yalta Conference that
                Russia would break its nonaggression pact with Japan and attack
                Manchuria about 90 days after the surrender of Germany (V-E Day).
                The Magic Summaries documented the shift of Soviet troops by rail
                from Europe to the Far East for this purpose. Because of a major
                intelligence failure, Marshall also believed that the Japanese had
                maintained their troop strength In Manchuria and were capable to
                resisting a Soviet Attack. But Tokyo had secretly brought back many
                of its troops from Manchuria to defend the home islands of Japan
                from an American invasion, leaving Manchuria and Korea easy prey for
                the Russians.

                Marshall also knew from the Magic decrypts that the Japanese home
                islands were to be defended from invasion and occupation by 2.3
                million troops, another four million Army and Navy employees and a
                newly created armed militia numbering 25 million. These defenders
                were sworn to fight to the death, which so many Japanese troops had
                done in battles throughout the Pacific.

                To effectively invade and occupy Japan, American strategists foresaw
                two invasions, scheduled for November 1945 and March 1946. The first
                invasion, on the island of Kyushu. would employ some 770,000
                American troops. The follow-up invasion on the plains of Tokyo,
                leading to the forced occupation of Japan, called for two million
                American troops.

                This brings us to the heart of the Enola Gay argument made by
                revisionist historians who claim

                (1) that President Truman either invented after the fact high
                invasion casualty estimates to provide moral and political
                justification for the use of atomic weapons; or

                (2) that Truman was never told about potentially high invasion
                casualties; or

                (3) that archival documentation for pre-invasion casualty estimates
                does not exist; or

                (4) that the pre-invasion estimates were minuscule.

                But according to documents I have uncovered, a conference to discuss
                pre-invasion casualties was held at the White House on June 18,
                1945, between President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From
                the Pacific, Gen. Douglas MacArthur submitted rather optimistic
                casualty estimates. This caused Adm. William D. Leahy, Truman's
                military advisor, to take charge of the session. Based on the
                experience at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Leahy predicted that in an
                invasion of Japan, 30% to 35% of U.S. soldiers would be killed or
                wounded during the first 30 days. Truman obviously understood what
                Leahy said. The president remarked that the invasion would create
                another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other. The Joint Chiefs
                of Staff agreed.

                Suddenly, and only after being advised about the buildup of Japanese
                forces and fortifications by Magic intelligence, MacArthur medical
                staff revised its pre-invasion needs for hospital beds upwards by
                300%. MacArthur's chief surgeon, Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated
                that a 120-day campaign to invade and occupy only the island of
                Kyushu would result in 395,000 casualties.

                Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries, just before the
                Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, about behind-the-
                scenes negotiations between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-
                14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito's
                blessing, had met with the Russian ambassador to Tokyo to propose a
                new relationship between the two countries. Japan proposed to carve
                up Asia with the USSR . According to the Magic Diplomatic Summaries
                of July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador: "Japan will
                increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with
                the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world...." The
                Magic Summaries further revealed that throughout June and July 1945,
                Japan's militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would
                never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans.

                On July 4, 1945, the British agree to the use of the atomic bomb
                against Japan. On July 16, during the Potsdam Conference, the first
                A-bomb was successfully tested. A way had been found to end the war
                quickly and decisively. This was the situation on July 26 when the
                U.S., Britain and China issued the Potsdam Declaration to Japan to
                surrender unconditionally, "The alternative," said the
                declaration, "is complete and utter destruction."

                On July 25, Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki announced to the
                Japanese press that the Potsdnm declaration was to be Ignored."
                Meanwhile, the Magic Summaries revealed that Tokyo was demanding
                that Moscow accept a special envoy from Emperor Hirohito, presumably
                to cement the deal offering to divide Asia between Japan and Russia
                while Moscow brokered a Japanese surrender with the U.S. and Britain
                that would be acceptable to Tokyo.

                This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War
                Stimson and Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb
                fell on Japan. Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-
                deluded, neither prepared to surrender nor to negotiate seriously,
                the Americans decided that the only way to end the war quickly would
                be to use overwhelming force: nuclear weapons.

                Two bombs were dropped. The Russians invaded Manchuria. On August
                10, Emperor Hirohito overruled his militarist advisors and accepted
                the Potsdam declaration. Japan surrendered.

                Propaganda Campaign

                But the Americans continued to read the Japanese codes. Almost
                immediately; the Magic Summaries revealed that the new foreign
                minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, had begun a world-wide propaganda
                campaign to brand the Americans as war criminals for using nuclear
                weapons. Tokyo's goals included keeping Emperor Hirohito from being
                tried for instigating a war of aggression, and diverting Western
                attention away from the many Japanese atrocities committed since the
                start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937. "Since the Americans have
                recently been raising an uproar about the question of our
                mistreatment of prisoners [of war],'' Shigemitsu instructed his
                diplomats in the Sept. 15, 1945, Magic Summary, "I think we should
                make every effort to exploit the atomic bomb question in our
                propaganda. That propaganda campaign has borne its final fruit in
                the revisionist account of the bombing of Japan.

                Yet the evidence is crystal clear. The use of nuclear weapons to end
                World War II quickly and decisively averted the death or maiming of
                hundreds of thousands American soldiers, sailors, marines and
                airmen. It also saved the lives of some 400,000 Allied prisoners of
                war and civilian detainees in Japanese hands, all of whom were to be
                executed in the event of an American invasion of Japan. Above all,
                it saved untold hundreds of thousands more Japanese-perhaps millions-
                from becoming casualties of pre-invasion bombing and shelling,
                followed by two invasions and forcible occupation.
                ========================

                As Richard Frank says, critics share three fundamental premises. The
                first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically
                hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact
                and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is
                that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American
                leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed
                needless nuclear devastation. The critics divide over what prompted
                the decision to drop the bombs in spite of the impending surrender,
                with the most provocative arguments focusing on Washington's desire
                to intimidate the Kremlin. But based on the info shared by historian
                Richard Frank in his article:

                http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?
                idArticle=5894

                and also from the other article:

                http://centurychina.com/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm

                it is clear that all three of the critics' central premises are
                wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically
                hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a
                negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not
                just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence,
                American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand,
                understood--as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary
                stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and
                diplomatic intercepts--that "until the Japanese leaders realize that
                an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that
                they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This
                cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the
                military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.

                Kasangamo, I am not saying that the dropping of the atom bomb was
                good or even justified. I'm not even saying that what Doug shared
                were all putrid and the one I shared is any better. What I am
                suggesting is that we have to be careful with the things old man
                Doug is trying to peddle. He has this delusion that he makes logical
                arguments with impeccable substance; that his detractors do not have
                anything against him but merely ad hominem. A big NO!

                His messages are mostly (if not all) just anti-American sentiments
                (among anti-Jewish and anti-Christian sentiments). He likes to paint
                Americans as stupid, bad, and evil. He surfs the net and rejoices on
                the many anti-American propaganda he sees, as if these are treasures
                to his "arsenal". Even using the Jay Leno Show to justify his
                premise that Americans are stupid; he includes the Jay Leno Show in
                his "arsenal". But we have seen from the past exchanges that
                his "facts", "arguments", "logic", and his "arsenal" are mere duds.
                When confronted, much like the Ostrich, he sticks his head in the
                sand and pretend that he sees nothing from his detractors. He says
                he's not bothered with the insults? YeahÂ… so much for calling his
                detractors "irritants", huh? Anyway, can we really take this Crabby
                Old Fart seriously?

                I think tekton12 says it all:

                "I think Doug has gotten too old that the ability of his brain to
                think has ground to a halt. He is stuck on dead issues, unable to
                offer fresh insights and incapable of going beyond the
                propagandistic cliches that he has imbibed during his lifetime. This
                is a man who is bitter about the past.... All he can do is whine
                about how history should have been, instead of accepting history as
                it happened and moving on from there. What a sorry sight."

                Cheers,
                M_Y
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.