In article ,
wrote:

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

it saved a lot of american lives from not having to do a massive
invasion of the japanese home islands, and it still took TWO nuclear
bombings before they capitulated.

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

In article ,
wrote:

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

it saved a lot of american lives from not having to do a massive
invasion of the japanese home islands, and it still took TWO nuclear
bombings before they capitulated.

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

On 8 Sep 2004 09:18:21 -0700,
wrote:
Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

Had annilation been the objective, conventional weapons would have
sufficed--cf Dresden and Tokyo. We also probably wouldn't have spared
Kyoto, which was on the "short list" of targets.

The "policy goal" was to convince the opposition that we didn't NEED to
invade them to defeat them. Their battle plan up to then was that we
would invade and suffer horrible losses for which they expected we'd
have no stomach.

It was, in fact, a ruse on our part. Had they decided to continue the
war after Nagasaki, we had no other A-bombs to drop and probably
wouldn't for six months or more. Before VJ day, we were preparing for a
land invasion, and expected Normandy-scale losses for an extended
period.

It was believed that dropping "The Bomb" would end the war more quickly
with fewer losses--but it relied on Japan believing we had enough of
them to do the job, which we didn't.

On 8 Sep 2004 09:18:21 -0700,
wrote:
Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

Had annilation been the objective, conventional weapons would have
sufficed--cf Dresden and Tokyo. We also probably wouldn't have spared
Kyoto, which was on the "short list" of targets.

The "policy goal" was to convince the opposition that we didn't NEED to
invade them to defeat them. Their battle plan up to then was that we
would invade and suffer horrible losses for which they expected we'd
have no stomach.

It was, in fact, a ruse on our part. Had they decided to continue the
war after Nagasaki, we had no other A-bombs to drop and probably
wouldn't for six months or more. Before VJ day, we were preparing for a
land invasion, and expected Normandy-scale losses for an extended
period.

It was believed that dropping "The Bomb" would end the war more quickly
with fewer losses--but it relied on Japan believing we had enough of
them to do the job, which we didn't.

In article ,
John wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

it saved a lot of american lives from not having to do a massive
invasion of the japanese home islands, and it still took TWO nuclear
bombings before they capitulated.

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.

Japan had already made plans(and shared them with the USA) to surrender
before the bombs flew
They were arranging when and where the surrender was to take place
the bombing did not save even dozens of america lives
get your facts straight before posting crap like this
George

In article ,
John wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

it saved a lot of american lives from not having to do a massive
invasion of the japanese home islands, and it still took TWO nuclear
bombings before they capitulated.

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.

Japan had already made plans(and shared them with the USA) to surrender
before the bombs flew
They were arranging when and where the surrender was to take place
the bombing did not save even dozens of america lives
get your facts straight before posting crap like this
George

In article ,
John wrote:

[snip]


it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.


As long as people have your attitude, we're doomed to war after war. The
consequences of modern warfare are very persistent and eventually will render
the planet uninhabitable.

How do you plan to deal with that?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

In article ,
John wrote:

[snip]


it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.


As long as people have your attitude, we're doomed to war after war. The
consequences of modern warfare are very persistent and eventually will render
the planet uninhabitable.

How do you plan to deal with that?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

Dave Martin wrote:

Nope - days, weeks or months of planning typically go into suicide bombings.

I really wouldn't know...all I get to see are the pieces of crap after on the
news. It is still just one press of a trigger or button that they have to be
concerned about. To also put it in a different perspective I consider the
kamikaze *pilots* to be much more courageous than the current murderers. The end
goal is considerably different in the scope of human endeavors.

Besides, you really should talk with someone who has unsuccessfully tried to
commit suicide; those decisions are not made and acted upon in milliseconds.

You can throw that card here, but how would I know what your state of mind has
been?
The fact that you are here, and posting in a somewhat rational manner g
suggest that you have more courage than you will let on. And it * does * take
more courage to go on than give up... you know that. A suicide bomber is not
the same mindset as a emotionally crushed person who goes to the edge. So I
still say the bombers are cowards with a lack of true foresight or leadership to
make cultural changes that will help everyone, instead of harming them.

I also say I'm sorry that you once felt so much pain as to think no one wanted
to hear you play anymore. I hear Harvey is looking to replace ryann's bass
player on the sly...give him a call.g


--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

Dave Martin wrote:

Nope - days, weeks or months of planning typically go into suicide bombings.

I really wouldn't know...all I get to see are the pieces of crap after on the
news. It is still just one press of a trigger or button that they have to be
concerned about. To also put it in a different perspective I consider the
kamikaze *pilots* to be much more courageous than the current murderers. The end
goal is considerably different in the scope of human endeavors.

Besides, you really should talk with someone who has unsuccessfully tried to
commit suicide; those decisions are not made and acted upon in milliseconds.

You can throw that card here, but how would I know what your state of mind has
been?
The fact that you are here, and posting in a somewhat rational manner g
suggest that you have more courage than you will let on. And it * does * take
more courage to go on than give up... you know that. A suicide bomber is not
the same mindset as a emotionally crushed person who goes to the edge. So I
still say the bombers are cowards with a lack of true foresight or leadership to
make cultural changes that will help everyone, instead of harming them.

I also say I'm sorry that you once felt so much pain as to think no one wanted
to hear you play anymore. I hear Harvey is looking to replace ryann's bass
player on the sly...give him a call.g


--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

In article ,
Jay Kadis wrote:

In article ,
John wrote:

[snip]


it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.


its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal
with it
george

In article ,
Jay Kadis wrote:

In article ,
John wrote:

[snip]


it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.


its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal
with it
george

Dave Martin wrote:

Hey - France and Japan have the potential to do all of those things, and
China seems to be doing it now. Should we invade them, too?

Capitalistic competition is not the same as criminal attacks on the economy.
If France, Japan, and China have the where with all to blow our economy down
more power to them. Let them try ( they try now anyway...France and Japan
try to manipulate our currency all the time). The reality of it that most
people seem to ignore is that all three of those economies need us as much
as we need them.

--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

Dave Martin wrote:

Hey - France and Japan have the potential to do all of those things, and
China seems to be doing it now. Should we invade them, too?

Capitalistic competition is not the same as criminal attacks on the economy.
If France, Japan, and China have the where with all to blow our economy down
more power to them. Let them try ( they try now anyway...France and Japan
try to manipulate our currency all the time). The reality of it that most
people seem to ignore is that all three of those economies need us as much
as we need them.

--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

normanstrong wrote:

What are you suggesting, Nathan? That one has to be a psychotic
murderer in order to resist an infidel western occupying force?
Admittedly, that has been a popular belief among invading armies
throughout history, but I'm surprised to hear it from you.

There is a huge chasm between a terrorist and a sovereign nation. And if
you would like to quote actions taken * throughout* history, then perhaps
you would also like to understand that the cultural stance of many nations
was considerably different than it is now. 200 Years ago if a country had
the Technology they *were* the leaders. No question about it. And whether
anyone had something to say about it is irrelevant, because if your
country didn't develop at the same rate...well you are SOL when it came to
paying tribute or keeping your government in power.

We are considerably different people than those past cultures. We were
born of them, but we do not carry the same moor's today. Terrorist on the
other hand do not have you or your families, or this countries best
interest in hand. They don't care, and are intent on furthering a doctrine
that is archaic, and hell bent on destroying things you hold valuable.



--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

normanstrong wrote:

What are you suggesting, Nathan? That one has to be a psychotic
murderer in order to resist an infidel western occupying force?
Admittedly, that has been a popular belief among invading armies
throughout history, but I'm surprised to hear it from you.

There is a huge chasm between a terrorist and a sovereign nation. And if
you would like to quote actions taken * throughout* history, then perhaps
you would also like to understand that the cultural stance of many nations
was considerably different than it is now. 200 Years ago if a country had
the Technology they *were* the leaders. No question about it. And whether
anyone had something to say about it is irrelevant, because if your
country didn't develop at the same rate...well you are SOL when it came to
paying tribute or keeping your government in power.

We are considerably different people than those past cultures. We were
born of them, but we do not carry the same moor's today. Terrorist on the
other hand do not have you or your families, or this countries best
interest in hand. They don't care, and are intent on furthering a doctrine
that is archaic, and hell bent on destroying things you hold valuable.



--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

George wrote:

its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal
with it

And I call your statement being oblivious to the reality of the world. The
world has never been at peace, nor do the prospects look very good for the
next 50 years or so.



--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

George wrote:

its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal
with it

And I call your statement being oblivious to the reality of the world. The
world has never been at peace, nor do the prospects look very good for the
next 50 years or so.



--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

"Nathan West" wrote in message
...
To also put it in a different perspective I consider the
kamikaze *pilots* to be much more courageous than the current murderers.
The end
goal is considerably different in the scope of human endeavors.

Nope - the goal is to take the lives of your enemies - as many as possible.
(As opposed to 'war' in general, where the goal is to acheive your political
objective). Either you or another of the reactionary crew pointed out that
Islamic fanatics declared war on the US, which seems to make us all their
enemies.

I also say I'm sorry that you once felt so much pain as to think no one
wanted
to hear you play anymore. I hear Harvey is looking to replace ryann's
bass
player on the sly...give him a call.g

Not me - I have way too much fun being alive and causing trouble. But I've
spent many hours counseling those who have been in that frame of mind - the
thought processes that lead to suicidal ideas generally take months or years
to reach the stage of actually attempting suicide..

"Nathan West" wrote in message
...
To also put it in a different perspective I consider the
kamikaze *pilots* to be much more courageous than the current murderers.
The end
goal is considerably different in the scope of human endeavors.

Nope - the goal is to take the lives of your enemies - as many as possible.
(As opposed to 'war' in general, where the goal is to acheive your political
objective). Either you or another of the reactionary crew pointed out that
Islamic fanatics declared war on the US, which seems to make us all their
enemies.

I also say I'm sorry that you once felt so much pain as to think no one
wanted
to hear you play anymore. I hear Harvey is looking to replace ryann's
bass
player on the sly...give him a call.g

Not me - I have way too much fun being alive and causing trouble. But I've
spent many hours counseling those who have been in that frame of mind - the
thought processes that lead to suicidal ideas generally take months or years
to reach the stage of actually attempting suicide..

"Nathan West" wrote in message
...
Dave Martin wrote:

Hey - France and Japan have the potential to do all of those things, and
China seems to be doing it now. Should we invade them, too?

Capitalistic competition is not the same as criminal attacks on the
economy.
If France, Japan, and China have the where with all to blow our economy
down
more power to them. Let them try ( they try now anyway...France and Japan
try to manipulate our currency all the time). The reality of it that most
people seem to ignore is that all three of those economies need us as much
as we need them.

Umm, you DO realize that all three of the nations I mentioned have been
found in violation of various trade agreements, and subjected to sanctions
by various governing bodies. Of course, the US is just as guilty; punitive
actions against the US export trade come regularly. And China's exports to
the US have arguably done more damage to the 'American way of life' than any
action taken by terrorists. Remember when Wal-Mart was able to advertise
"American Made" products?

"Nathan West" wrote in message
...
Dave Martin wrote:

Hey - France and Japan have the potential to do all of those things, and
China seems to be doing it now. Should we invade them, too?

Capitalistic competition is not the same as criminal attacks on the
economy.
If France, Japan, and China have the where with all to blow our economy
down
more power to them. Let them try ( they try now anyway...France and Japan
try to manipulate our currency all the time). The reality of it that most
people seem to ignore is that all three of those economies need us as much
as we need them.

Umm, you DO realize that all three of the nations I mentioned have been
found in violation of various trade agreements, and subjected to sanctions
by various governing bodies. Of course, the US is just as guilty; punitive
actions against the US export trade come regularly. And China's exports to
the US have arguably done more damage to the 'American way of life' than any
action taken by terrorists. Remember when Wal-Mart was able to advertise
"American Made" products?

GW Bush on OBL

"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much
time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."
[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

DM

This should be posted in every voteing booth across America
I know I will post it, as close as legally posible, to my voteing place
Possibly make it into foot high letters and drape in on my car
George

GW Bush on OBL

"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much
time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."
[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

DM

This should be posted in every voteing booth across America
I know I will post it, as close as legally posible, to my voteing place
Possibly make it into foot high letters and drape in on my car
George

In article ,
Nathan West wrote:

George wrote:

its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal
with it

And I call your statement being oblivious to the reality of the world. The
world has never been at peace, nor do the prospects look very good for the
next 50 years or so.


Thats as good a reason as any I have heard for not trying
fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity
George

In article ,
Nathan West wrote:

George wrote:

its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal
with it

And I call your statement being oblivious to the reality of the world. The
world has never been at peace, nor do the prospects look very good for the
next 50 years or so.


Thats as good a reason as any I have heard for not trying
fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity
George

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

So the new strategy for the "Anybody But Bush" Presidential Campaign is to
refight *World War II* now? Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well for
Senator Swiftboat.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

So the new strategy for the "Anybody But Bush" Presidential Campaign is to
refight *World War II* now? Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well for
Senator Swiftboat.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

The reason was twofold:
(A) Scientific. It was a safe way to test a technology on a civilian population
with little ethical restraint because the testers were locked in a desperate
war. The atomic bomb had no strategic military relevance at this point, since
the war's outcome was certain.
(B) Political. The US knew that as soon as the Axis was dispatched it would be
facing the Soviet Union & the atomic bomb was seen as an important means of
telling the Soviets to back off.

Scott Fraser

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

The reason was twofold:
(A) Scientific. It was a safe way to test a technology on a civilian population
with little ethical restraint because the testers were locked in a desperate
war. The atomic bomb had no strategic military relevance at this point, since
the war's outcome was certain.
(B) Political. The US knew that as soon as the Axis was dispatched it would be
facing the Soviet Union & the atomic bomb was seen as an important means of
telling the Soviets to back off.

Scott Fraser

In article ,
(ScotFraser) wrote:

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

The reason was twofold:
(A) Scientific. It was a safe way to test a technology on a civilian
population
with little ethical restraint because the testers were locked in a desperate
war. The atomic bomb had no strategic military relevance at this point, since
the war's outcome was certain.
(B) Political. The US knew that as soon as the Axis was dispatched it would
be
facing the Soviet Union & the atomic bomb was seen as an important means of
telling the Soviets to back off.

Scott Fraser

Unfortunately, (B) had the opposite effect, much as it is having today. Once a
technology is developed, it's available to anyone who wishes to apply the same
diligent research and development. It's impossible to sequester knowledge. And
a little spying can save an enormous effort by those who follow. [We have some
examples of this in our own industry, don't we?]

It's time to realize that just because we _can_ pursue certain lines of
research, perhaps we shouldn't blindly do so.


-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

In article ,
(ScotFraser) wrote:

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

The reason was twofold:
(A) Scientific. It was a safe way to test a technology on a civilian
population
with little ethical restraint because the testers were locked in a desperate
war. The atomic bomb had no strategic military relevance at this point, since
the war's outcome was certain.
(B) Political. The US knew that as soon as the Axis was dispatched it would
be
facing the Soviet Union & the atomic bomb was seen as an important means of
telling the Soviets to back off.

Scott Fraser

Unfortunately, (B) had the opposite effect, much as it is having today. Once a
technology is developed, it's available to anyone who wishes to apply the same
diligent research and development. It's impossible to sequester knowledge. And
a little spying can save an enormous effort by those who follow. [We have some
examples of this in our own industry, don't we?]

It's time to realize that just because we _can_ pursue certain lines of
research, perhaps we shouldn't blindly do so.


-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:



Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

So the new strategy for the "Anybody But Bush" Presidential Campaign is
to
refight *World War II* now? Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well
for
Senator Swiftboat.


I guess I too would have opted for 6 years of stateside drugging and
boozing over incountry, in harms way, service
you see Me and GW do have something in common
George

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:



Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

So the new strategy for the "Anybody But Bush" Presidential Campaign is
to
refight *World War II* now? Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well
for
Senator Swiftboat.


I guess I too would have opted for 6 years of stateside drugging and
boozing over incountry, in harms way, service
you see Me and GW do have something in common
George

Dave Martin wrote:

Umm, you DO realize that all three of the nations I mentioned have been
found in violation of various trade agreements, and subjected to sanctions
by various governing bodies. Of course, the US is just as guilty; punitive
actions against the US export trade come regularly.

There are all sorts of political trade off going on between Europe, the USA,
Japan and China. Three words come to mind with Japan (who have single handily
hurt our economy worse than any other country) Toyota, Honda and Sony. The
problem is those connivers did it the old fashion way...they built better
quality, lower priced products...the *******s.
China on the other hand...we could switch about 60% of our product purchases
away, which would allow us to reign supreme trade wise for about two years.
However If we did, we would lose our extremely valuable Car, Cell Phone, and
technology market gains we have achieved in the last 20 years. Oil is being
purchased by China in 30 - 40% larger quantities than expected over the last two
years. Funny thing about emerging economies....they alter the course of human
economics without asking. Of course once we can co-op the former Russia into
being the Food Farm for the rest of the World we will once again
dominate...being that my thinking is that technology will not be the savior of
any countries economy anymore. Food and H2O will. Whomever controls those
commodities will rule the world.

And China's exports to
the US have arguably done more damage to the 'American way of life' than any
action taken by terrorists. Remember when Wal-Mart was able to advertise
"American Made" products?

--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

Dave Martin wrote:

Umm, you DO realize that all three of the nations I mentioned have been
found in violation of various trade agreements, and subjected to sanctions
by various governing bodies. Of course, the US is just as guilty; punitive
actions against the US export trade come regularly.

There are all sorts of political trade off going on between Europe, the USA,
Japan and China. Three words come to mind with Japan (who have single handily
hurt our economy worse than any other country) Toyota, Honda and Sony. The
problem is those connivers did it the old fashion way...they built better
quality, lower priced products...the *******s.
China on the other hand...we could switch about 60% of our product purchases
away, which would allow us to reign supreme trade wise for about two years.
However If we did, we would lose our extremely valuable Car, Cell Phone, and
technology market gains we have achieved in the last 20 years. Oil is being
purchased by China in 30 - 40% larger quantities than expected over the last two
years. Funny thing about emerging economies....they alter the course of human
economics without asking. Of course once we can co-op the former Russia into
being the Food Farm for the rest of the World we will once again
dominate...being that my thinking is that technology will not be the savior of
any countries economy anymore. Food and H2O will. Whomever controls those
commodities will rule the world.

And China's exports to
the US have arguably done more damage to the 'American way of life' than any
action taken by terrorists. Remember when Wal-Mart was able to advertise
"American Made" products?

--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

Bob Cain

WillStG wrote:


Once upon a time, a Democrat said -

Will, he was simply puting Nikita Kruschev on notice. Does
not-so-subtle sublety totally escape you?

So you speak for JFK too now Bob?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Bob Cain

WillStG wrote:


Once upon a time, a Democrat said -

Will, he was simply puting Nikita Kruschev on notice. Does
not-so-subtle sublety totally escape you?

So you speak for JFK too now Bob?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:



Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.


So the new strategy for the "Anybody But Bush" Presidential Campaign is to
refight *World War II* now?


Umm, how did YOU connect the two?

Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well for
Senator Swiftboat.

Oh, I see. Standard Bushthink. Polly want a cracker?

WillStG wrote:



Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.


So the new strategy for the "Anybody But Bush" Presidential Campaign is to
refight *World War II* now?


Umm, how did YOU connect the two?

Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well for
Senator Swiftboat.

Oh, I see. Standard Bushthink. Polly want a cracker?