Eric F. Richards wrote:
Spare me.

Ignorant? yes.

Propogandistic? yes.

Treasonous? not even close.

LEARN WHAT WORDS MEAN before you use them!

Also, learn about U.S. history. It is EXTREMELY hard to charge
someone with treason -- that vas VERY intentional by the founding
fathers.

Finally, try this: Disennt is not treason. Dissent is not treason.
Dissent is not treason. Tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids until
any moment not thinking -- which for you should be nearly all the time
-- is occupied by that phrase.

Agreed.

To the writer of that excrement:

Clearly you haven't heard of the firebombing of Tokyo, which was more
destructive to lives than both atomic detonations together.
And so what. Both the firebombing and the nuclear explosions were
designed to get the Japanese to stop fighting a losing battle. One
that would have cost our side and theirs huge numbers of killed had a
land invasion taken place.

You haven't heard of the bombing of Koln and Dresden.

I like to think of them as partial payback for London and numerous
concentration camps.


For that matter, you haven't heard of the Rape of Nanking, Serbia,
Rawanda and Somalia. You, sir and/or madam, need a ****ing clue.
Unless, of course, you LIKE your ignorance, and like waving it around
in public...

Y'all are a collection of stupid, ideological ****s. Get lives, or
stop wasting ours. Please.


The author of that piece sees the world in colored and white terms:
The white oppressors against the colored (usually black) oppressed.
I'm gonna guess he is also a proponent of slavery reparations for those
with some link to the formerly oppressed from those with some link to
the former oppressors.

"John S." wrote:


Clearly you haven't heard of the firebombing of Tokyo, which was more
destructive to lives than both atomic detonations together.
And so what. Both the firebombing and the nuclear explosions were
designed to get the Japanese to stop fighting a losing battle. One
that would have cost our side and theirs huge numbers of killed had a
land invasion taken place.

The point, which you seem to have missed, too, is that just because it
used a fission reaction doesn't make it the ultimate evil. Tokyo,
Dresden, Koln were all far more destructive. I'm not talking about
motives here, so spare me. The POINT is, the nukes were destructive
as in what a single bomb could do, but they sure as hell weren't when
compared mission-for-mission.

I would have far rather been 5 miles away from Hiroshima than 5 miles
away from Dresden. I suspect even at that distance I could have been
sucked in by the firestorm.

--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert

There was a big Dresden exibit here in Jackson,Mississippi a year or so
ago.Do a www.devilfinder.com for it,if you are interested.I also have
a few videos of it.I went to it and I took a bunch of pictures with my
Kodak camera and snail mailed some pictures to that married Irish woman
wayyyy over yonder across the big pond.There have been some other big
major exibits here in Jackson too,Spain and France to name a few.In
September of this year,Celtic Fest Mississippi will be in Jackson,it is
an annual event thingy,wild Horses can't keep me away.
cuhulin

Eric F. Richards wrote:
"John S." wrote:


Clearly you haven't heard of the firebombing of Tokyo, which was more
destructive to lives than both atomic detonations together.
And so what. Both the firebombing and the nuclear explosions were
designed to get the Japanese to stop fighting a losing battle. One
that would have cost our side and theirs huge numbers of killed had a
land invasion taken place.

The point, which you seem to have missed, too, is that just because it
used a fission reaction doesn't make it the ultimate evil. Tokyo,
Dresden, Koln were all far more destructive. I'm not talking about
motives here, so spare me. The POINT is, the nukes were destructive
as in what a single bomb could do, but they sure as hell weren't when
compared mission-for-mission.

You are confusing issues here. In the firebombing of tokyo, london,
dresden or koln there were numerous devices used which resulted in
numerous highly destuctive fires. In the two separate nuclear bomb
attacks on japan one device was used in each attack with extreme
destruction the result.


I would have far rather been 5 miles away from Hiroshima than 5 miles
away from Dresden. I suspect even at that distance I could have been
sucked in by the firestorm.

Chances are you would have been killed or seriously maimed for life by
radiation at a 5 mile distance.



--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert

www.devilfinder.com World War Two The Magician (Jasper Maskelyne) I
have the pocket book here,I have read it only once,many years ago.It is
an interesting read.If y'all are interested?
cuhulin

"John S." wrote:



You are confusing issues here.

No, I'm not. You are, or you are being deliberatly obtuse.

The point is, the firebombings KILLED MORE PEOPLE.

They were more DESTRUCTIVE.


End of story.

So, which was "more evil?" (which is a bull**** construct, but lets
leave that alone for now...)

Killing 75,000 people with a nuke?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries, timing the individual waves
to catch fire and rescue people in the open and unprotected? (read up
on Dresden.)

In the firebombing of tokyo, london,
dresden or koln there were numerous devices used which resulted in
numerous highly destuctive fires. In the two separate nuclear bomb
attacks on japan one device was used in each attack with extreme
destruction the result.


I would have far rather been 5 miles away from Hiroshima than 5 miles
away from Dresden. I suspect even at that distance I could have been
sucked in by the firestorm.

Chances are you would have been killed or seriously maimed for life by
radiation at a 5 mile distance.


Check your facts.
--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:23:10 -0600, Eric F. Richards
wrote:

"John S." wrote:



You are confusing issues here.

No, I'm not. You are, or you are being deliberatly obtuse.

The point is, the firebombings KILLED MORE PEOPLE.

They were more DESTRUCTIVE.


End of story.

So, which was "more evil?" (which is a bull**** construct, but lets
leave that alone for now...)

Killing 75,000 people with a nuke?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries, timing the individual waves
to catch fire and rescue people in the open and unprotected? (read up
on Dresden.)

In the firebombing of tokyo, london,
dresden or koln there were numerous devices used which resulted in
numerous highly destuctive fires. In the two separate nuclear bomb
attacks on japan one device was used in each attack with extreme
destruction the result.


I would have far rather been 5 miles away from Hiroshima than 5 miles
away from Dresden. I suspect even at that distance I could have been
sucked in by the firestorm.

Chances are you would have been killed or seriously maimed for life by
radiation at a 5 mile distance.


Check your facts.
Amazing.

"Amazing" in what way? That I don't drink your kool-aid? That I
consider more people being killed as more bad, even though it didn't
involve a -- GASP -- nuke?

Since you need it spelled out in simple terms, go to a library (aside:
when there, don't pronounce it "lie-barry" -- they'll laugh), pick up
this month's National Geographic, and read the story on the 60th
anniversary. It'w written in simple, easy to understand english, so
you'll get it, and there are pictures too, just in case the english is
too tiring on you.

There's even a picture taken from 5 miles away from a 15 kiloton
(Hiroshima-sized) strike, with a bunch of troops.

Good luck at trying to open your mind to a new concept.

David wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:23:10 -0600, Eric F. Richards
wrote:

"John S." wrote:



You are confusing issues here.

No, I'm not. You are, or you are being deliberatly obtuse.

The point is, the firebombings KILLED MORE PEOPLE.

They were more DESTRUCTIVE.


End of story.

So, which was "more evil?" (which is a bull**** construct, but lets
leave that alone for now...)

Killing 75,000 people with a nuke?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries, timing the individual waves
to catch fire and rescue people in the open and unprotected? (read up
on Dresden.)

In the firebombing of tokyo, london,
dresden or koln there were numerous devices used which resulted in
numerous highly destuctive fires. In the two separate nuclear bomb
attacks on japan one device was used in each attack with extreme
destruction the result.


I would have far rather been 5 miles away from Hiroshima than 5 miles
away from Dresden. I suspect even at that distance I could have been
sucked in by the firestorm.

Chances are you would have been killed or seriously maimed for life by
radiation at a 5 mile distance.


Check your facts.
Amazing.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:30:36 -0600, Eric F. Richards
wrote:

"Amazing" in what way? That I don't drink your kool-aid? That I
consider more people being killed as more bad, even though it didn't
involve a -- GASP -- nuke?

Since you need it spelled out in simple terms, go to a library (aside:
when there, don't pronounce it "lie-barry" -- they'll laugh), pick up
this month's National Geographic, and read the story on the 60th
anniversary. It'w written in simple, easy to understand english, so
you'll get it, and there are pictures too, just in case the english is
too tiring on you.

There's even a picture taken from 5 miles away from a 15 kiloton
(Hiroshima-sized) strike, with a bunch of troops.

Good luck at trying to open your mind to a new concept.

Fascinating...