Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3fe325a4$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2....

"Sunny" wrote:

"Polybus"
wrote
in message
. com...
Peter Kuznick,
Professor of History and Director, Nuclear
Studies Institute, American
University

Kevin Martin
Executive Director, Peace Action

Daniel Ellsberg
Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and
The
Pentagon Papers

Questions :
1. Do the three retards listed above,
condone
the cross posting to the
groups listed ?
2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History
(or only his version of it)?
3. Do any of the three realise that there
was a World War on at the
time?
4. What would you have suggested, at
the
time, as the means to subdue a
fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate
acts of barbarism that are
still wondered at?




They all seem to think that if we had talked
nicely to the Japanese,
they
would have surrendered. Not bloody likely.
There was a war on, a major
invasion
planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS
to prevent the bloodbath of
American, British, and yes, Japanese lives
and END THE WAR ASAP is a
viable
option. If that means incinerating two, three,
or however many Japanese
Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
so be it.

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right
to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran
and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
target civilians in their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?



Absolutely not. The rules of war, written or othewise, have changed.
Saddam's
use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW Treaty, which Iraq had signed.

You were supporting the idea of using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. You still
haven't explained why Iraq didn't have the same right, given that ANY MEANS
obviously encompasses both legal and illegal.


As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism and war,

The war had actually started at least some 6 years earlier. How was it
different from
bombing campaigns conducted in other theatres and wars by the US and its
allies
where the targets were residential or economic? (Apart from the obvious that
it was
them doing it to US rather than US doing it to them.)