Re: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
>From: RogerM
>Date: 12/13/03 7:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Peter Aitken wrote:
>>
>> 1) We could have dropped the bomb in a lightly populated area to show the
>> Japanese that we had it and hopefully scared them into surrender. Note that
>> Hiroshima and a couple of other cities were spared conventional bombing so
>> the effects of the A-bomb could be studied - rather cold blooded don't you
>> think?
>>
>
>Correct. The bombs were dropped on cities in order to cow the Japanese
>and to threaten the Russians.
>
>> 2) We did not really need to invade Japan. They were beaten with no
>credible
>> air or naval threat and could have been sealed off. Thus the argument that
>> the bombs saved the undoubtedly high casualties of an invasion is specious.
>>
>
>Correct again.
>
>--
>
>"I swear on my grandmother. I wouldn't break that." - Jon Dalton,
>Survivor 7
>
>The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.
>
>I find that while malice and greed are prime motivations in human
>behavior, it is a serious error to discount basic human stupidity.


Nothing to say about the Holocaust. The rape of Nanking, The Bataan death
march, Pearl Harbor?

Regards,



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[KEV OF BBA]

Nice one Art- amazing how these academic idiots decide to ignore the rest of
history. Adjusting reality to suit their own purposes methinks.

Cheers
Mad Jock

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

ArtKramr > wrote:

: Nothing to say about the Holocaust. The rape of Nanking, The Bataan death
: march, Pearl Harbor?

Those seem 100% irrelevant to me in this debate. We are talking
here about warfare, not justice.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
>From: "Emmanuel.Gustin"
>Date: 12/14/03 4:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr > wrote:
>
>: Nothing to say about the Holocaust. The rape of Nanking, The Bataan death
>: march, Pearl Harbor?
>
>Those seem 100% irrelevant to me in this debate. We are talking
>here about warfare, not justice.
>
>--
>Emmanuel Gustin
>


Bombing the enemy is a legitimate part of warfare. Raping civilians and
beheading PW's is not. We fought the war with honor. Japan fought the war
without honor. You decide what is relevant to you. I'll decide what is relevant
to me.

Regards,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Alan Minyard]

On 14 Dec 2003 12:36:14 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:

>ArtKramr > wrote:
>
>: Nothing to say about the Holocaust. The rape of Nanking, The Bataan death
>: march, Pearl Harbor?
>
>Those seem 100% irrelevant to me in this debate. We are talking
>here about warfare, not justice.

The decision to use the bombs was made much easier by the
depraved, despicable acts of the Japanese.

Al Minyard

[B2431]

>From: (KEV OF BBA)

>Nice one Art- amazing how these academic idiots decide to ignore the rest of
>history. Adjusting reality to suit their own purposes methinks.
>
>Cheers
>Mad Jock
>
Firstly, let me say I know the atomic bombings were absolutely necessary.

Secondly, an academic excercise such as discussing the bombings as a way to end
the war can exclude the atrocities Art mentioned. I just wish most of said
academics would not count only American lives. They should count Japanese,
Chinese and Soviet( in China) lives as well as Soviet expansion into nothern
Japan proper.

Thirdly, let me say such academic excercises are nice diversions but they have
no relevance to reality.

And, lastly, it is a good thing such discussions between the pro-bombing and
anti-bombing factions exist, I just wish they would not extend to a museum
display that should remain politically neutral. Put the airplane there with a
sign saying something like this: This B-29 dropped the first atomic bomb ever
used in anger.


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>>From: (KEV OF BBA)
>
>>Nice one Art- amazing how these academic idiots decide to ignore the rest of
>>history. Adjusting reality to suit their own purposes methinks.
>>
>>Cheers
>>Mad Jock
>>
>Firstly, let me say I know the atomic bombings were absolutely necessary.
>
>Secondly, an academic excercise such as discussing the bombings as a way to end
>the war can exclude the atrocities Art mentioned. I just wish most of said
>academics would not count only American lives. They should count Japanese,
>Chinese and Soviet( in China) lives as well as Soviet expansion into nothern
>Japan proper.
>
>Thirdly, let me say such academic excercises are nice diversions but they have
>no relevance to reality.
>
>And, lastly, it is a good thing such discussions between the pro-bombing and
>anti-bombing factions exist, I just wish they would not extend to a museum
>display that should remain politically neutral. Put the airplane there with a
>sign saying something like this: This B-29 dropped the first atomic bomb ever
>used in anger.
>
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Of course...and for Christ's sake don't add "...and it was a very
bad thing"...

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...


<snip of idiot gibbering>

> Of course...and for Christ's sake don't add "...and it was a very
> bad thing"...

It was a very bad thing. Pandora's box can never be closed again.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
><snip of idiot gibbering>
>
>> Of course...and for Christ's sake don't add "...and it was a very
>> bad thing"...
>
>It was a very bad thing. Pandora's box can never be closed again.
>
Well John, it's quite likely that someone said exactly that when
the very first charge of gunpowder was ignited. And likely again
when the first arrow left it's bowstring...the first club
connected with someone's skull...etc...

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> ><snip of idiot gibbering>
> >
> >> Of course...and for Christ's sake don't add "...and it was a very
> >> bad thing"...
> >
> >It was a very bad thing. Pandora's box can never be closed again.
> >
> Well John, it's quite likely that someone said exactly that when
> the very first charge of gunpowder was ignited. And likely again
> when the first arrow left it's bowstring...the first club
> connected with someone's skull...etc...

Are you sure that wasn't Tarver's skull that it connected with? That might
explain a few things... :)

Brooks

>
> -Gord.
>
> "I'm trying to get as old as I can,
> and it must be working 'cause I'm
> the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:06:38 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>><snip of idiot gibbering>
>>
>>> Of course...and for Christ's sake don't add "...and it was a very
>>> bad thing"...
>>
>>It was a very bad thing. Pandora's box can never be closed again.
>>
>Well John, it's quite likely that someone said exactly that when
>the very first charge of gunpowder was ignited. And likely again
>when the first arrow left it's bowstring...the first club
>connected with someone's skull...etc...
>
>-Gord.
>
>"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
> and it must be working 'cause I'm
> the oldest now that I've ever been"

Heck, the Pope tried to ban crossbows because they
would "destroy civilization".

Al Minyard

[Stephen Harding]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:06:38 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>><snip of idiot gibbering>
>>>
>>>>Of course...and for Christ's sake don't add "...and it was a very
>>>>bad thing"...
>>>
>>>It was a very bad thing. Pandora's box can never be closed again.
>>
>>Well John, it's quite likely that someone said exactly that when
>>the very first charge of gunpowder was ignited. And likely again
>>when the first arrow left it's bowstring...the first club
>>connected with someone's skull...etc...
>
> Heck, the Pope tried to ban crossbows because they
> would "destroy civilization".

Never knew the cross bow was considered to be such a terrible
weapon.

I know the long bow was for a time though.

The armored cavalry types didn't like the idea of being knocked
off their horses on to their tin cans from 80 yards out by mere
peasant folk.

What was the world coming to?


SMH

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> ><snip of idiot gibbering>
> >
> >> Of course...and for Christ's sake don't add "...and it was a very
> >> bad thing"...
> >
> >It was a very bad thing. Pandora's box can never be closed again.
> >
> Well John, it's quite likely that someone said exactly that when
> the very first charge of gunpowder was ignited. And likely again
> when the first arrow left it's bowstring...the first club
> connected with someone's skull...etc...

So true, but life has taught me to be a gracious winner. I believe America
can set about the same policy in foreign relations. I do not say that we
"apologise" to the Japanese, as "bad things" can happen to those who come to
our house and blow up our stuff. My friend George's father still hates the
Japanese and another friend, an Arizona survivor, went to his grave the same
way. Hate is also a bad thing.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>So true, but life has taught me to be a gracious winner.

No comment.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

Mary Shafer > wrote:

>I turned that up using "crossbow Pope" in Google, to confirm my
>memory.
>
>
>Mary

A tiny bit of useful trivia...you get exactly the same effect in
Google when you omit the second quotation mark as you do when you
use it. (all those quarter seconds add up!)

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Stephen Harding]

Mary Shafer wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:12:34 -0500, Stephen Harding
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Never knew the cross bow was considered to be such a terrible
>>weapon.
>
>
> The cross bow was such a terrible weapon that a Pope forbade its use
> against fellow Christians. Using it on pagans and unbelievers was OK,
> though. Needless to say, this ban didn't last.
>
> "William the Conqueror brought skilled crossbow men with him when he
> invaded England in A.D. 1066.
>
> "The crossbow was powerful in battle because its bolts (a shorter
> version of arrows) could penetrate the chain mail of opponents.
> Leaders of the Catholic Church, outraged by the lethal weapon, deemed
> the crossbow "unfit to be used among Christians" and tried to ban it
> from warfare in 1139—without success. Richard I ("the Lionheart") died
> of a crossbow wound on the battlefield in 1199." from
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0905_crossbow.html
>
> I turned that up using "crossbow Pope" in Google, to confirm my
> memory.

I do recall the devastating effects the English longbow had on the
battlefield, and it's superiority over the crossbow. It had greater
range, higher rate of fire, and more hitting/penetrating power.

But it took a lot of practice and strength to operate competently,
whereas the crossbow did not. It did not really come into its own
until after all the hubbub over the crossbow, I guess.

Thanks for the "archery lesson" Mary!


SMH

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:47:38 -0500, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>> The cross bow was such a terrible weapon that a Pope forbade its use
>> against fellow Christians. Using it on pagans and unbelievers was OK,
>> though. Needless to say, this ban didn't last.

Actually, the provisions of the second Lateran council in 1139 seem to
be directed at all archers, not crossbowmen in isolation:

"29. We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and
archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians
and Catholics from now on."

IIRC, crossbowmen were beginning to become largely drawn from a
developing professional mercenary class at this point.

>I do recall the devastating effects the English longbow had on the
>battlefield, and it's superiority over the crossbow. It had greater
>range, higher rate of fire, and more hitting/penetrating power.

The longbow as it appeared in the 100 Years War wasn't a feature of
12th century warfare. The actual measure concerned took part against
a background of the relevant pope attempting to restore papal
authority after a schism and continue the general policy of attempting
to limit warfare within Christendom and constrain it under papal
religious theory.

Gavin Bailey

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
>From: The Wolf
>Date: 12/18/03 5:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 12/17/2003 11:09 PM, in article ,
>"Jack G" > opined:
>
>> Pretty catchy retort there John, unfortunately there is nothing you can say
>> that will in the least offend me - all you can do by publishing such
>> rudeness is diminish your own image in the eyes of others.
>>
>> As far as bias in the press, none of the papers mentioned by you provide
>> what can in any way be called balanced coverage of the situation in Iraq.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>
>*The* Situation in Iraq is infinitely better than is was a year ago and will
>improve exponentially over the next year.
>
>**** You Liberal Bush Bashing Cocksucker!
>


PLONK
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Tarver Engineering]

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"
> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:47:38 -0500, Stephen Harding
> > wrote:
>
> >> The cross bow was such a terrible weapon that a Pope forbade its use
> >> against fellow Christians. Using it on pagans and unbelievers was OK,
> >> though. Needless to say, this ban didn't last.
>
> Actually, the provisions of the second Lateran council in 1139 seem to
> be directed at all archers, not crossbowmen in isolation:
>
> "29. We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and
> archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians
> and Catholics from now on."

My goodness, the Pope dissing my family's coat of arms.

> IIRC, crossbowmen were beginning to become largely drawn from a
> developing professional mercenary class at this point.

And very profitable.

> >I do recall the devastating effects the English longbow had on the
> >battlefield, and it's superiority over the crossbow. It had greater
> >range, higher rate of fire, and more hitting/penetrating power.
>
> The longbow as it appeared in the 100 Years War wasn't a feature of
> 12th century warfare. The actual measure concerned took part against
> a background of the relevant pope attempting to restore papal
> authority after a schism and continue the general policy of attempting
> to limit warfare within Christendom and constrain it under papal
> religious theory.

Let us all stand in a line and kill one another, until a political solution
can be reached.

[B2431]

>From: RogerM

>> Are we beheading prisoners? Starving them?
>
>You're mistreating those in Cuba.
>

Prove it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired