"Intelligence doesn't work against a madman."

[Guest]

ella, the other enlarged. P.

 

[minsue]

Deliciously, I love Jon Stewart too. It's criminal that my cable company doesn't carry Comedy Central. In fact, my cable company can just bite me.

I'm at work when he's on & the cable guy hooked up the box in such a fashion that neither my husband nor myself can figure out how to get the damned VCR hooked up to tape cable. I think we need to befriend someone with a 12 year old who can come do it.

The link in the above post will take you to a large selection of Daily Show video footage, though. I've been getting my fix there.

- Mindy

 

[oggbashan]

Sorry Og, i would never support any candidate who was for selling Israel out to a bunch of terorists. Hammas and Islamic Jihad and the Martyr's Brigade's manifesto is not to get a fair an equitable peace, it is not to see a separate Palestinian state, it is to drive Isreal into the sea.

The PAL Authority supports these groups tacitly if not openly and the citizenry do too. Asking Israel to sit on thier hands when their citizen's abre being blown to bits is unconsionable.

-Colly

p.s. I am over my bout of depression, thanks to all who sent notes.

Congratulations on the recovery.

We Brits have had to negotiate with terrorists many times - even the Israeli Stern Gang who killed British soldiers in what was then Palestine. Some of those "terrorists" became leaders of Israel and we treated them as representatives of a 'friendly' state.

We continued to negotiate with the provisional IRA even while they were setting off bombs in England.

One person's 'terrorist' is another person's 'freedom fighter'. I do not like innocent civilians being killed whether by Palestinians or Israelis.

Your statement that "the citizenry do too" you should think about. WHY do the Palestians support these groups? The answer has to be that they can see no reasonable solution. If a people has no hope of a reasonable peace then they will lash out at their oppressors. We (the US and the UK) encouraged that in WWII. The resistance movements attacked 'soft' targets, assassinated leaders of the occupying power and killed collaborators.

From the Palestinian viewpoint the parallel is exact. Until that is changed then I am sorry but people will continue to be killed on both sides.

I can understand Israeli anger and grief. I can also understand Palestinian anger and grief. Until BOTH sides look beyond the anger and hatred then no solution is possible and more people will die.

"Selling out Israel" is not my message. Building bridges between peoples who hate each other is necessary if both are going to move forward. The US has to continue to try to get both sides talking even if neither trust each other. If the US uncritically supports Israel when they are right AND when they wrong then they are destroying any chance of peace.

Israel has to have a right to exist. The Palestinians want the same right. If the US and the UN support the rights of BOTH, with perhaps a UN military presence to preserve the peace until it has a chance to succeed then there might be peace in the Middle East.

Israel is in breach of more UN resolutions than any other country. It could be said that Arab states dominate the UN - they don't - but sympathy for the Palestinians is not necessarily an indication that a country opposes Israel's right to exist in peace with its neighbours.

From a Middle East viewpoint, the US is like Israel's 'big brother' who will beat anyone up who criticises Israeli policies. Being someone's 'big brother' should have responsibilities as well as duties. Sometimes 'little brother' can be in the wrong and 'big brother' should give him a quiet talking to.

Og

 

[shereads]

We Brits have had to negotiate with terrorists many times - even the Israeli Stern Gang who killed British soldiers in what was then Palestine. Some of those "terrorists" became leaders of Israel and we treated them as representatives of a 'friendly' state.

We continued to negotiate with the provisional IRA even while they were setting off bombs in England.

One person's 'terrorist' is another person's 'freedom fighter'. I do not like innocent civilians being killed whether by Palestinians or Israelis.

Your statement that "the citizenry do too" you should think about. WHY do the Palestians support these groups? The answer has to be that they can see no reasonable solution. If a people has no hope of a reasonable peace then they will lash out at their oppressors.

Thank you, Ogg, for expressing that so beautifully. It's an issue that you in Europe are closer to, both geographically and because terrorrist attacks within your own borders are not new to you as they are to us.

There are so many reasons why there is not a Palestinian state that I seem to read a new one every month. Their Arab neighbors are complicit, it seems; I've heard it said that Islamic states want this issue kept alive, to keep violence going on both sides so that Israel and the U.S. will remain the enemy. (Nothing is more useful politically than an enemy, is it?) Unfortunately, Israel's behavior in response to one incident after another remains so predictable that it's as if they're cooperating with those who want to demonize them. We fell into the same trap after 9/11, just as Dr. Mabeuse said when he wrote here that 9/11 wasn't an attack but an instigation to violence on our part. (Forgive me if I misinterpreted you, Dr. M).

How did Britain and Ireland break the cycle that seemed so hopeless? I remember a time when Catholic/Protestant violence in Ireland and IRA attacks within Britain were in the news constantly, and when visiting Ireland on vacation was considered nearly as risky as going to the Middle East would be now.

Is it that much better now?

Or is it simply no longer newsworthy by the standards of the rest of the world?

Your post made me realize that I haven't read any news about the IRA in ages, Ogg. Is it just something the U.S. media have lost interest in, or are things substantially more peaceful now?

 

[oggbashan]

How did Britain and Ireland break the cycle that seemed so hopeless? I remember a time when Catholic/Protestant violence in Ireland and IRA attacks within Britain were in the news constantly, and when visiting Ireland on vacation was considered nearly as risky as going to the Middle East would be now.

Is it that much better now?

Or is it simply no longer newsworthy by the standards of the rest of the world?

Your post made me realize that I haven't read any news about the IRA in ages, Ogg. Is it just something the U.S. media have lost interest in, or are things substantially more peaceful now?

We haven't broken the cycle yet.

We have continuing crises about the agreement that led to a ceasefire and to the IRA putting some of their arms "out of commission" in exchange for political legitimacy for Sinn Fein.

The two sides in Northern Ireland are still far apart. The terrorists are still intimidating 'normal' people in their communities. Both have significant stocks of arms. Both sides are afraid of each other and political positions are hardening.

The only real hope is that the people of Northern Ireland realise that peace brings economic benefits and a better quality of life for all. The real problem that the "Catholic" minority are unwilling to be part of a government ruled by the "Protestant" majority is still there. The "Protestants" don't want to give power to the "Catholics". The "Catholics" don't want to be overruled by the majority.

I have put "Catholics" and "Protestants" in inverted commas becasue the dispute is NOT about the respective Churches both of whom want peaceful co-existence but between communities with different cultural roots that are still fighting the enforced partition of 1922.

The "Protestants" do not want to be a minority in a united Eire. The "Catholics" do not want to be a minority in a separate Northern Ireland.

People are still being hurt. Maybe it is baseball bats and fists instead of bullets and bombs but the injuries are still inciting hatred.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Congratulations on the recovery.

We Brits have had to negotiate with terrorists many times - even the Israeli Stern Gang who killed British soldiers in what was then Palestine. Some of those "terrorists" became leaders of Israel and we treated them as representatives of a 'friendly' state.

We continued to negotiate with the provisional IRA even while they were setting off bombs in England.

One person's 'terrorist' is another person's 'freedom fighter'. I do not like innocent civilians being killed whether by Palestinians or Israelis.

Your statement that "the citizenry do too" you should think about. WHY do the Palestians support these groups? The answer has to be that they can see no reasonable solution. If a people has no hope of a reasonable peace then they will lash out at their oppressors. We (the US and the UK) encouraged that in WWII. The resistance movements attacked 'soft' targets, assassinated leaders of the occupying power and killed collaborators.

From the Palestinian viewpoint the parallel is exact. Until that is changed then I am sorry but people will continue to be killed on both sides.

I can understand Israeli anger and grief. I can also understand Palestinian anger and grief. Until BOTH sides look beyond the anger and hatred then no solution is possible and more people will die.

"Selling out Israel" is not my message. Building bridges between peoples who hate each other is necessary if both are going to move forward. The US has to continue to try to get both sides talking even if neither trust each other. If the US uncritically supports Israel when they are right AND when they wrong then they are destroying any chance of peace.

Israel has to have a right to exist. The Palestinians want the same right. If the US and the UN support the rights of BOTH, with perhaps a UN military presence to preserve the peace until it has a chance to succeed then there might be peace in the Middle East.

Israel is in breach of more UN resolutions than any other country. It could be said that Arab states dominate the UN - they don't - but sympathy for the Palestinians is not necessarily an indication that a country opposes Israel's right to exist in peace with its neighbours.

From a Middle East viewpoint, the US is like Israel's 'big brother' who will beat anyone up who criticises Israeli policies. Being someone's 'big brother' should have responsibilities as well as duties. Sometimes 'little brother' can be in the wrong and 'big brother' should give him a quiet talking to.

Og

The UN has sacrificed its impatial standing in the Israeli/PAL situation every bit as much as we have. Whenever Isreal was wining, the UN has steped in and stopped them. When Isreal retaliates the UN condems them, but that same august body is yet to castigate the terrorists with anything near the same out rage as it does the Israelis. In fact I don't think it has ever castigated them in a resolution. If it were not for the U.S. veto then the U.N. would have already handed the jewish state over to be carved up with it's blessings.

I don't have any particular sympathy for the Palestinians. They didn't own the land for a very long time, in fact as you pointed out the most recent "govenor" of the state of Palestine was the U.K. That occured after the signing of the Versallies Treaty and remained in force until after World War II. At that time an international body gave the Palestinians 75% of the Palestinian mandate and gave the Jews 25%. Rather then be content with the lion's share, independance and a chance to have their own state the PAL immediately joined with the Syrians, Jordainians and Egyptians with aide from other Arab nations and tried to take the 25% given to the Jews.

They got their butt's kicked and lost thier state and have been crying boo-hoo in the internatinal community for years trying to get the world to give them back what they lost through an agressive war. I might note according to Nuremberg we should have tired the heads of all those states as war criminals for waging agressive war and crimes against peace. No one did, instead they castigated the Isrealis and have continued to treat them as phariah's. All except us. We have admiration for a small state that won't be wiped out and refuses to yeild.

I am not Jewish, but I have the greatest respect for Israel. I have zero respect for the PALs. Much like the troubles, when the Provo's were attacking police, military and government sponsored "irrregulars" I had sympathy for them. When they started setting off bombs that indescriminatly killed civilians they became terrorists to me.

If the Palestinian people really wanted peace they would get rid of the leaders who still think they can drive Israel into the sea. They would cease supoorting terrorist networks, who's every attack simply strnghtens the resolve of the U.S. to support Israel, they would dismantle the militia's and they would work for peace. Instead when faced with the road map peace plan, leader after leader has refused to take the one step that is neccessary for peace to work. They have refused to dismantle or crack down on the terrorists in their midst and at least make a show of offering the Israelis some hope of security.

They don't hold the cards anymore. I saw not long ago they were going to have trouble making their Feb. payroll. Their bloody handed tactics have started to wear thin and in a world where the U.S. is commited to fight terrorism on a global scale they continue to push themselves farther and farther away from any sympathy with the U.S. public.

Setting off a bomb in a bus that kills 23 noncombatants, incluing women and children is not going to endear you to many in the U.S. And if in retaliation Israel kills some innocents I am afraid it dosen't make as much difference because they are going after terrorists and the population is harboring them. Civilian deaths as collateral damage are a lot less outrageous than civilian deaths where they were the targets.

I don't think there will ever be peace inthe mideast. Not until either the Jews or the Arabs are wiped out. They have been killing one another over there for at least 2000 years and I find it just a bit arrogant for us (that is outsiders) to believe we can stop that. For peace to grow trust has to exist. No sane Israeli will trust the Palestinians. Every time the IDF relaxes restrictions some lemming kills a few more Israelis in a bar, or on a bus or in a shopping mall. A lot of people say a less hawkish government in Israel is needed, but I hate to shatter illusions. The one thing we all expect of our government is that it will keep us safe. If you put doves in and they let it go when Hammas or Islamic Jihad sets off a bomb in a seaside resort, they will be voted out so fast it will make your head spin and the hardliners will be right back in control.

Sharon has to respond. Violence must be met with violence. It's as much a political neccessity as a survival instinct.

I am proud of my country in the way it has almost always stood up for its "little brother". I hope no U.S. President is ever willing to buy "peace" in the region at the cost of selling out a small state surrounded by enemies and fighting on a daily basis for it's survival. Israel is our only reliable ally in the region and has been for years.

Thanks for the congrats. Depression comes and goes with me and sometimes the drugs just don't take effect before it really gets me down.

-Colly

 

[oggbashan]

Colly,

Neither I, nor the UK government, are 'against' Israel.

Neither are we 'for' Palestinians.

What I am saying is that tit for tat retaliation is not going to solve the problem. There has to be gradual contact between two peoples who have good reason to hate each other. There has to be understanding of the other guy's point of view. That understanding seems to be missing in the US. If you cannot see that the Palestinians feel just as threatened as the Israelis feel threatened then you, the US, are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Many people in the Middle East hate the US with a ferocity that is difficult to appreciate. Much of that hatred is bred from the Israel/Palestine dilemma. Until Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace their differences will breed "freedom fighters" aka "terrorists" not just from among the Palestinians but elsewhere - wherever there are people who feel deprived of the apparent benefits that US citizens have.

Can you imagine what a sub-Saharan father who has seen his children starve to death thinks of a MacDonalds, Coca-Cola or Pepsi advert?

The faltering steps made towards peace in Israel have been made by the 'hawks' of the Israeli politicians, not the appeasors. It would have to be a courageous person who could stop the building of settlements on Palestinian land and demolish some of those already built. That person would have to face the fury of the fundamentalist Jews who are equally unreceptive to reason as fundamentalist Muslims, Christians or whatever.

It is the reasonable people on both sides who must work for peace even if they get called 'traitors', 'collaborators' and 'turncoats'.

The Arab states around Israel now recognise Israel's right to exist. That is a major step. Israel has to recognise that the Palestinians have a right to exist as well.

It is no use going back to 1946 or 1919, the Six Day War, yesterday's missile attack or yesterday's suicide bomber. Peace can only be built by dealing with now and looking to the future. People will not forget what they have suffered. Nor should they. They should hope for a better future in which people do not die by unnecessary violence.

Og

PS. If we in the UK never forgave our enemies, and our enemies never forgave us, we would have no friends or allies at all. We have been at war with nearly every country in the world (including the US) at least once during the last 300 years. Yet Prince Charles visited Iran yesterday. Tony Blair will be visiting Libya soon.

 

[NoJo]

PS. If we in the UK never forgave our enemies, and our enemies never forgave us, we would have no friends or allies at all. We have been at war with nearly every country in the world (including the US) at least once during the last 300 years. Yet Prince Charles visited Iran yesterday. Tony Blair will be visiting Libya soon.

Good stuff, there Og. I'm a bit cynical about "forgiveness", though. Pragmatism is probably a better description.

 

[shereads]

A college-educated man at my office said one day, "Why doesn't Palestine just leave Israel alone?"

(I'm not sure what his SAT scores were, but I think he graduated at the top of his class from Yale. )

You give people a lot of credit, Colly, when you say that Americans are losing sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Remember how shocked people were when Palestinian children were shown on tv news, celebrating in the streets after 9/11? We've been safe for so long, secured by peaceful borders up and down and oceans on each side, that we're surprised to be reminded that the rest of the world has a perspective that's downright un-American.

Can the whole world be wrong about us except for Tony Blair and Croatia?

Children die in Palestine too. They may be collateral damage and not the victims of terrorism, but they're just as dead. And btwy, I haven't owned my home for very long either. I won't let you use that as a reason to take it from me and give it to your friends.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A college-educated man at my office said one day, "Why doesn't Palestine just leave Israel alone?"

(I'm not sure what his SAT scores were, but I think he graduated at the top of his class from Yale. )

You give people a lot of credit, Colly, when you say that Americans are losing sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Remember how shocked people were when Palestinian children were shown on tv news, celebrating in the streets after 9/11? We've been safe for so long, secured by peaceful borders up and down and oceans on each side, that we're surprised to be reminded that the rest of the world has a perspective that's downright un-American.

Can the whole world be wrong about us except for Tony Blair and Croatia?

Children die in Palestine too. They may be collateral damage and not the victims of terrorism, but they're just as dead. And btwy, I haven't owned my home for very long either. I won't let you use that as a reason to take it from me and give it to your friends.

People are loosing sympathy Sher. At least according to the Ap report I read. Only Lybia and Saudi Arabia are sending money to the Palestinian Authority now. You can only be seen as murderous mad dogs killing innocents for so long before people become tired of your atrocities. According to the report, and I will try to dig it up, the Pal Authority is loosing the PR war now and even some of the more forward thinking members of Arafat's party are questioning if the infantada is helping or hurting htem now.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

Neither I, nor the UK government, are 'against' Israel.

Neither are we 'for' Palestinians.

What I am saying is that tit for tat retaliation is not going to solve the problem. There has to be gradual contact between two peoples who have good reason to hate each other. There has to be understanding of the other guy's point of view. That understanding seems to be missing in the US. If you cannot see that the Palestinians feel just as threatened as the Israelis feel threatened then you, the US, are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Many people in the Middle East hate the US with a ferocity that is difficult to appreciate. Much of that hatred is bred from the Israel/Palestine dilemma. Until Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace their differences will breed "freedom fighters" aka "terrorists" not just from among the Palestinians but elsewhere - wherever there are people who feel deprived of the apparent benefits that US citizens have.

Can you imagine what a sub-Saharan father who has seen his children starve to death thinks of a MacDonalds, Coca-Cola or Pepsi advert?

The faltering steps made towards peace in Israel have been made by the 'hawks' of the Israeli politicians, not the appeasors. It would have to be a courageous person who could stop the building of settlements on Palestinian land and demolish some of those already built. That person would have to face the fury of the fundamentalist Jews who are equally unreceptive to reason as fundamentalist Muslims, Christians or whatever.

It is the reasonable people on both sides who must work for peace even if they get called 'traitors', 'collaborators' and 'turncoats'.

The Arab states around Israel now recognise Israel's right to exist. That is a major step. Israel has to recognise that the Palestinians have a right to exist as well.

It is no use going back to 1946 or 1919, the Six Day War, yesterday's missile attack or yesterday's suicide bomber. Peace can only be built by dealing with now and looking to the future. People will not forget what they have suffered. Nor should they. They should hope for a better future in which people do not die by unnecessary violence.

Og

PS. If we in the UK never forgave our enemies, and our enemies never forgave us, we would have no friends or allies at all. We have been at war with nearly every country in the world (including the US) at least once during the last 300 years. Yet Prince Charles visited Iran yesterday. Tony Blair will be visiting Libya soon.

It seems you bring up a very good point in saying it's no use going back. The Palestinians however insist on going back to the pre 67 borders. Kind of strange, you start a war, get your butt kicked, can not hope to get your own country back except by whining to the international community and yet you want to dictate the status Quo antebellum.

Sher would obviously disagree with me as her circle of freinds is far different from mine, but most of my friends think of the Palestinians as terrorists. I don't know if they represent the majority of Americans, but I think they are indicative of the stance much of the population takes. Most see the Isrealis as the "good" guys, trying to defend themselves from repreated terrorist attacks and the Pal's are the "bad" guys, blowing up innocent women and children.

I think there is also a feeling that all Arabs hate us anyway, the Israeli's are the only ones we can trust to be our freinds. At least they don't celebrate when Americans are killed in terrorist attacks. The Palestinians do.

Personally I think the "Berlin Wall" idea may be the best bet for peace of a kind. It will be an armed peace, but if the Isrealis feel they can withdraw behind that wall and keep terrorists out then maybe they won't feel the need to demand disarming the terrorists as a pre req for negotiations.

As I stated before I see no prostpect of a lasting peace until one or the other is dead. The hatreds are too old, too deep and the mutual antipathy and distrust so ingrained I just don't see much hope of a negotiated settlement. The Pal Authority won't crack down on terrorists and the Isreali's won't budge until they do. No one can resonably expect the israeli's to ignore terrorists killing their citizens while peace negotiations are going on. Hammas & Islamic Jihad don't want peace, they want Isreal destroyed and they intentionally make attacks whle peace is being discussed. The Pal Authority pays lip service to wanting peace, but their actions don't show it.

The terrorists guarentee the two sides stay at Laggerheads.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Colly said,

I have zero respect for the PALs. Much like the troubles, when the Provo's were attacking police, military and government sponsored "irrregulars" I had sympathy for them. When they started setting off bombs that indescriminatly killed civilians they became terrorists to me. [snipped]

Setting off a bomb in a bus that kills 23 noncombatants, incluing women and children is not going to endear you to many in the U.S. And if in retaliation Israel kills some innocents I am afraid it dosen't make as much difference because they are going after terrorists and the population is harboring them. Civilian deaths as collateral damage are a lot less outrageous than civilian deaths where they were the targets.
======

Contrary to international law and moral considerations, civilians have been extensively targeted from early in the WWII period, by England, Germany, Japan, and the US. Szilard, an atomic scientist commented, July '45, on the trend (more of the document, below):

At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England.

Your distinction between 'targets' and 'collateral' is probably untenable. In any case, it's pretty clear civilians were targeted, as both of the following docs suggest.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#E

Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939

The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives.

I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.[end]

=====

http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-03.html

Szilard Petition, First Version, July 3, 1945

{{Petition to re consider using atomic bombs on Japanese cities}}



Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, Harrison-Bundy File, folder #76.

The first version of Leo Szilard's petition, dated July 3, 1945, was more strongly worded than the final version. It was also more specific in identifying the moral issues that he believed were involved.

Rejecting the pretense that the targets would be military, the petition called atomic bombs "a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities."[...]

The July 3 version received 59 signatures at the Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory, but it was not submitted to the President in this form. Szilard sought to broaden support, and rewrote it into the final version of July 17.

SECRET
THIS PAGE REGRADED UNCLASSIFIED
Order Sec Army
720564 July 3, 1945

A PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ...



The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and the destruction of Japanese cities by means of atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present circumstances. We believe that the United States ought not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender.

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.

Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities. Once they were introduced as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.

The last few years show a marked tendency toward increasing ruthlessness. At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England. Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness.{my bold}

Atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of this development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale. [end excerpt Szilard petition]

{signed by Szilard and a number of other scientists; later version signed by 60 odd, key atomic scientists}

 

[Edward Teach]

Knock yourself out.

I'll take this 'independent' study on any day of the week.

1) Maryland is hardly a haven of conservative thought. The only known Republican in the entire state is George Will.
2) Take a look at the PIPA board of advisors and find me one non-liberal.

Second point of discussion, look at the 'egregious wrong views' they chose to analyze. They only chose statements that seem to be 'wrong headed views of right wingers'. It would be a far more interesting study if they took a number of 'myths of news' to see ties to any particular network.

Finally - the statistical conclusions. Among the people who had the wrong views were people that watched Fox news and no other programs. There's an inferred conclusion that people who watch Fox news have wrong information. I suspect that as Fox appeals to a more conservative group, that there might be a larger percentage of its audience that has Fundamentalist Christian views of evolution. Just because those people choose to watch Fox does not mean Fox gave them that information. Some people come with their own preconceived notion of what is so. They do not listen, they do not learn. They only hear what they want to hear.

What I would take from this story is that there is a percentage of viewers from each and every network that don't pay attention and get the story right.

Final caution - I would be very careful about referring to ANY group within a hundred miles of Washington DC as independent. As any good fund raiser will tell you, the moderates in the middle are the least committed and least willing to pay to support a project. It is far easier to separate someone from their hard earned money if they HAVE an opinion. Thus, most of the 'not for profit' (read 'tax deductible recipient of conributions') organizations in and around DC exist through the generosity and support of one side or the other. Before you attest to someone's 'independence' ask to see their annual filing on sources and use of funds.

OldnotDead,

I posted a link to the twenty-three page PIPA study as a source of information and the article about it by Russell Wangersky to give anyone not interested in reading the full report a general idea of its content. As I stated, the study was conducted under the auspices of the University of Maryland which I consider a highly respected institution. Perhaps you would have preferred a study by Pat Robertson’s Regency University, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University or Oral Robert’s ORU. I don’t know what you consider unbiased.

Some conservatives take the attitude that if you are not biased for them, you are biased against them and that anyone who is not cheerleading for the administration is a hated liberal who needs to be challenged at every turn, just like Rush and Sean say.

Personally, I have been curious for some time as to how so much incorrect information about the war got disseminated and accepted as fact. I find it very disturbing that a large percentage of Americans have misperceptions about why we are at war and frankly can’t understand why everyone doesn’t want to know what those misperceptions are and where they came from.

The PIPA/KN report is very open about its sources, funding, methodology, polls, etc. and in its introduction, states how and why the report came to be produced.

You state that, "I’ll take this ‘independent’ study on any day of the week."

I don’t have the time to carry on an argument explaining and defending a report issued by a respected university, so if it’s an argument with me you seek, you are out of luck. If, on the other hand, you want to take on a report by the UMD, there are twenty-three pages of it, plus several links to other sites, so knock yourself out.

Ed

 

[shereads]

Re: Knock yourself out.

OldnotDead,

Personally, I have been curious for some time as to how so much incorrect information about the war got disseminated and accepted as fact. I find it very disturbing that a large percentage of Americans have misperceptions about why we are at war and frankly can’t understand why everyone doesn’t want to know what those misperceptions are and where they came from.

Funny you should ask...



I happen to have gone to a degree of trouble for you both, the product of which is at the recently posted thread which I call,

"'Hello,' he lied."

OldNotDead, I dare you to ead the first post of that thread and tell me you still believe we were not deliberately deceived by this administration. Teach, I think you and I both know that the "misperceptions" are simply a matter of people being unwilling to believe that their president and his spokesmen are liars.

Pat Robertson said on CNBC last night that anyone who says the administration planned the war in Iraq before 9/11 is a liar, because that would mean the president is a traitor. Is that logic speaking? Or just blind faith?

 

[Edward Teach]

Re: Re: Knock yourself out.

Pat Robertson said on CNBC last night that anyone who says the administration planned the war in Iraq before 9/11 is a liar, because that would mean the president is a traitor. Is that logic speaking? Or just blind faith?

Ther's this man in Virginia, who's havin' trouble seein', in fact I think this man's blind. Join me in prayer far this man.

Pat

Ps- For just $7 a week you too can becom a member of the 700 Club - just phone 800-HELP PAT - operators are stanking by.

edited to correct "stanking" but I decided I kinda like it better than standing.

 

[Edward Teach]

Server crash!

The damn server crashed!!

One puny little joke about Pat Robertson and bang, the server crashed!

I take it back!! I'm sorry!!

Contritefully,

Ed

 

[shereads]

Teach, leave Pat Robertson alone, please. We need God on our side. I mean his side...Wait, no, he's on Bush's side, and claims that He is also on Bush's side, which means this is all moot...

This is from MoveOn.org:

U.S. Newspapers Silent on Cheney Investigation

If you're only watching the American media, there's a story you haven't heard a thing about, but not because it's inconsequential to Americans: International news sources have reported that Vice President Dick Cheney could come under criminal investigation for his role in a massive bribery scandal while he was head of Halliburton.

The story has been discussed in French, British, and Austrialian papers for at least three weeks. On Saturday, the Dallas Morning News became the first major U.S. newspaper to cover the story -- with a front page article, no less. Yet the other 11 of America's 12 highest-circulation daily papers haven't covered Cheney's inclusion in the investigation at all.

The investigation involves allegations that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root and a French company together paid $180 million in illegal commissions to government officials during the construction of a natural gas complex in Nigeria.

This comes after Halliburton's admission in May that, under Cheney's leadership, the oil-field services company "paid a Nigerian tax official $2.4 million in bribes to get favorable tax treatment," according to the Associated Press. An investigation on the matter by the Securities and Exchange Commission continues. Halliburton has also come under fire for inflating gasoline prices in Iraq and receiving noncompetitive contracts to rebuild Iraqi oil facilities.

{note from SR: on NBC news last night, U.S. Army now admits that it awarded the most recent of its Halliburton contract without bids, when it had previously stated that Halliburton won the contract from among a field of five bidding companies. WTF?}

Initiated by French law enforcement authorities*, the case would be prosecuted under an international treaty making bribery of foreign public officials a criminal offense. The treaty has been signed by the United States, France, and over 30 other countries.

For more information about this investigation, read the international news articles assembled by the Center for American Progress in its daily Progress Report:

http://*******.com/35zht


----------------

*It's a French plot. SR

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,

I have zero respect for the PALs. Much like the troubles, when the Provo's were attacking police, military and government sponsored "irrregulars" I had sympathy for them. When they started setting off bombs that indescriminatly killed civilians they became terrorists to me. [snipped]

Setting off a bomb in a bus that kills 23 noncombatants, incluing women and children is not going to endear you to many in the U.S. And if in retaliation Israel kills some innocents I am afraid it dosen't make as much difference because they are going after terrorists and the population is harboring them. Civilian deaths as collateral damage are a lot less outrageous than civilian deaths where they were the targets.
======

Contrary to international law and moral considerations, civilians have been extensively targeted from early in the WWII period, by England, Germany, Japan, and the US. Szilard, an atomic scientist commented, July '45, on the trend (more of the document, below):

At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England.

Your distinction between 'targets' and 'collateral' is probably untenable. In any case, it's pretty clear civilians were targeted, as both of the following docs suggest.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#E

Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939

The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives.

I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.[end]

=====

http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-03.html

Szilard Petition, First Version, July 3, 1945

{{Petition to re consider using atomic bombs on Japanese cities}}



Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, Harrison-Bundy File, folder #76.

The first version of Leo Szilard's petition, dated July 3, 1945, was more strongly worded than the final version. It was also more specific in identifying the moral issues that he believed were involved.

Rejecting the pretense that the targets would be military, the petition called atomic bombs "a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities."[...]

The July 3 version received 59 signatures at the Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory, but it was not submitted to the President in this form. Szilard sought to broaden support, and rewrote it into the final version of July 17.

SECRET
THIS PAGE REGRADED UNCLASSIFIED
Order Sec Army
720564 July 3, 1945

A PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ...



The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and the destruction of Japanese cities by means of atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present circumstances. We believe that the United States ought not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender.

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.

Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities. Once they were introduced as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.

The last few years show a marked tendency toward increasing ruthlessness. At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England. Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness.{my bold}

Atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of this development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale. [end excerpt Szilard petition]

{signed by Szilard and a number of other scientists; later version signed by 60 odd, key atomic scientists}

In WWII civlians became legitimate targets in major cities. The probable reason for such bombings was purely revenge and even to strike terror into the populace. The stated reason, to deprive the work force of homes near industry was most likely facetious. In the case of the japanese there was at least a slightly stronger grounds for it based on the fact that much of her war production had become cottage industry. Still, the U.S. Navy considered the use of Chemical warfare on the Japanese homeland, the feling was that the entire population would rise up to defend the home islands and that fear was not without some grounding.

That said most of the major powers got away from that and returned to at least paying lip service to trying to control collateral damage. And most people consider attacks on civilians to be wrong, even if done by mistake.

Nothing you presented here changes the fact that the Israeli's are targeting combatans, no matter how shady the definition of combatants has become in a war on terror, where the Palestinians are TARGETING manifestly non combatant civilians.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Colly said,

In WWII civlians became legitimate targets in major cities. The probable reason for such bombings was purely revenge and even to strike terror into the populace. The stated reason, to deprive the work force of homes near industry was most likely facetious. In the case of the japanese there was at least a slightly stronger grounds for it based on the fact that much of her war production had become cottage industry. Still, the U.S. Navy considered the use of Chemical warfare on the Japanese homeland, the feling was that the entire population would rise up to defend the home islands and that fear was not without some grounding.

My comment: I'm not sure why you say legitimate: Roosevelt and Szilard are pretty clear they are in breach of international law and morality

That said most of the major powers got away from that and returned to at least paying lip service to trying to control collateral damage. And most people consider attacks on civilians to be wrong, even if done by mistake.

My comment: I think 'lip service' is the operative word. Here are a couple stats that are pretty commonly accepted:

=====
http://fp.uni.edu/prahl/viet_nam.htm

During the entire course of World War II, the total tonnage of bombs dropped by the US Army Air Corps was 2,150,000 tons. The US Air Force during the Viet Nam War dropped 6,162,000 tons.
=====
{Veterans against the war}
http://www.may4.org/vietnam.htm
15,500,000 tons of bombs and munitions were used by U.S. forces. 18,000,000 gallons poisonous chemical herbicides such as Agent Orange were sprayed over forest and croplands in South Vietnam. The U.S. spent $168.1 billion to fight the war. Its final cost is estimated at between $350 and $900 billion.

===
{A de-mining group in Cambodia, 1990s}

http://www.una-uk.org/Study Tours/SEAsiatour/cambodia/minefield.html

Our group was joined by a retired French colonel, who acts as an viser on demining. He was fulsome in his praise of the Cambodian teams, which he rated as some of the best in the world. They need to be: some 2.4 million bombs were dropped in the war and 2-4% failed to explode, 9-10 million anti-personnel mines were laid between 1982-1996 leaving over 62% of the villages contaminated and 5 million people at risk. In 1993 alone there were 1153 casualties, mainly civilians.
[end quotes]
====
My comments (pure):
These are many of facts give new meaning to your term 'control of collateral damage'. Note in the last sentence we are talking casualties of over 1000 in one year---20 years after the fact!!

Isn't it a little slippery to suggest all these millions of tons/gallons were always 'targeted' in the morally appropriate way?
===

Nothing you presented here changes the fact that the Israeli's are targeting combatans, no matter how shady the definition of combatants has become in a war on terror, where the Palestinians are TARGETING manifestly non combatant civilians.

===
You say 'no matter how shady the definiton of 'combatants' has become. You are simply letting the US and west make definitions of 'combatants' as they choose.

I say the alleged moral superiority of the US or Israel is largely a figment: In the Vietnam war, it's clear that while, perhaps, _targeting_ military and industrial and communications targets, the US was often unconcerned about predictable 'collateral effects.' This violates international law, and in routine legal terms is something like 'reckless disregard' (sort of like a bar owner discharging a few shotgun blasts in the direction of fleeing thief, across a crowded roomful of people). Another concept from criminal law is 'depraved indifference' (to loss of life); giving rise to culpable homicide.

I'd say, civilian deaths resulting from "I dont give a shit; there's probably an 'enemy' here somewhere' and "I'm going to target a civilian" are quite comparable in moral terms.

To give another example without a ref: In S Vietnam, after an air mission, the bombers had permission, in certain large, US specified zones, to drop the remaining bombs on any structure or moving thing. Again, the application of moral 'hair splitting' seems only driven by your ideology.

Best,
J.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,

In WWII civlians became legitimate targets in major cities. The probable reason for such bombings was purely revenge and even to strike terror into the populace. The stated reason, to deprive the work force of homes near industry was most likely facetious. In the case of the japanese there was at least a slightly stronger grounds for it based on the fact that much of her war production had become cottage industry. Still, the U.S. Navy considered the use of Chemical warfare on the Japanese homeland, the feling was that the entire population would rise up to defend the home islands and that fear was not without some grounding.

My comment: I'm not sure why you say legitimate: Roosevelt and Szilard are pretty clear they are in breach of international law and morality

That said most of the major powers got away from that and returned to at least paying lip service to trying to control collateral damage. And most people consider attacks on civilians to be wrong, even if done by mistake.

My comment: I think 'lip service' is the operative word. Here are a couple stats that are pretty commonly accepted:

=====
http://fp.uni.edu/prahl/viet_nam.htm

During the entire course of World War II, the total tonnage of bombs dropped by the US Army Air Corps was 2,150,000 tons. The US Air Force during the Viet Nam War dropped 6,162,000 tons.
=====
{Veterans against the war}
http://www.may4.org/vietnam.htm
15,500,000 tons of bombs and munitions were used by U.S. forces. 18,000,000 gallons poisonous chemical herbicides such as Agent Orange were sprayed over forest and croplands in South Vietnam. The U.S. spent $168.1 billion to fight the war. Its final cost is estimated at between $350 and $900 billion.

===
{A de-mining group in Cambodia, 1990s}

http://www.una-uk.org/Study Tours/SEAsiatour/cambodia/minefield.html

Our group was joined by a retired French colonel, who acts as an viser on demining. He was fulsome in his praise of the Cambodian teams, which he rated as some of the best in the world. They need to be: some 2.4 million bombs were dropped in the war and 2-4% failed to explode, 9-10 million anti-personnel mines were laid between 1982-1996 leaving over 62% of the villages contaminated and 5 million people at risk. In 1993 alone there were 1153 casualties, mainly civilians.
[end quotes]
====
My comments (pure):
These are many of facts give new meaning to your term 'control of collateral damage'. Note in the last sentence we are talking casualties of over 1000 in one year---20 years after the fact!!

Isn't it a little slippery to suggest all these millions of tons/gallons were always 'targeted' in the morally appropriate way?
===

Nothing you presented here changes the fact that the Israeli's are targeting combatans, no matter how shady the definition of combatants has become in a war on terror, where the Palestinians are TARGETING manifestly non combatant civilians.

===
You say 'no matter how shady the definiton of 'combatants' has become. You are simply letting the US and west make definitions of 'combatants' as they choose.

I say the alleged moral superiority of the US or Israel is largely a figment: In the Vietnam war, it's clear that while, perhaps, _targeting_ military and industrial and communications targets, the US was often unconcerned about predictable 'collateral effects.' This violates international law, and in routine legal terms is something like 'reckless disregard' (sort of like a bar owner discharging a few shotgun blasts in the direction of fleeing thief, across a crowded roomful of people). Another concept from criminal law is 'depraved indifference' (to loss of life); giving rise to culpable homicide.

I'd say, civilian deaths resulting from "I dont give a shit; there's probably an 'enemy' here somewhere' and "I'm going to target a civilian" are quite comparable in moral terms.

To give another example without a ref: In S Vietnam, after an air mission, the bombers had permission, in certain large, US specified zones, to drop the remaining bombs on any structure or moving thing. Again, the application of moral 'hair splitting' seems only driven by your ideology.

Best,
J.

So your opinion is that there is no moral difference in people killed by accident or because they are in close proximinity to a legitimate target and people who are actively targeted. Thats an interesting point of view. Not one I share or understand, but interesting.

-Colly

 

[Boxlicker101]

So your opinion is that there is no moral difference in people killed by accident or because they are in close proximinity to a legitimate target and people who are actively targeted. Thats an interesting point of view. Not one I share or understand, but interesting.

-Colly

I agree very strongly with you Colly. The fact that a military target is built close to a non-target should not protect the target. When the North Vietnamese built anti-aircraft cmplacements on the roofs of hospitals or schools, the Americans took them out, doing damage to the building underneath, and the NV then cried "ATROCITY". When they pointed a finger at the US, four fingers were pointing back at themselves, which was appropriate.

When the Iranians sent crowds of children across Iraqu minefields to clear them, they were responsible for the deaths and injuries to the children, not the Iraqis.

 

[Pure]

//So your opinion is that there is no moral difference in people killed by accident or because they are in close proximinity to a legitimate target and people who are actively targeted. Thats an interesting point of view. Not one I share or understand, but interesting.//

This isn't what I said, but, using these McNamara or Cheney -esque categories---

Well, would you say the people of Hiroshima or Dresden were 'killed by accident' or because of 'close proximity to a legitimate target'?

"Nasty little accident for 50,000 in Hiroshima" ---is this your suggested headline?**


Would you say the roughly 1000 casualties by mines in that year (1993) in Cambodia, were 'accidental' or 'close proximity' and how do you know, anyway?

Sounds suspiciously like a 'my[US] hands are always clean' argument. 'I being good, sometimes have 'collateral casualties'; you being evil, maliciously target civilians.'

Added: In which of your categories is
//18,000,000 gallons poisonous chemical herbicides such as Agent Orange were sprayed over forest and croplands in South Vietnam.// (source cited, previously)

While not always lethal in the short run, that's lots of sick people, babies with birth defects, and even ill US soldiers. Are they 'accidental' or 'close proximity' or what? I'd say, such injuries and illnesses due to 'depraved indifference' are morally comparable to, say, a non-fatal injury a US citizen(civilian) receives when a bomb goes off in an American-frequented cafe in which he's relaxing (let's say, hypothetically, in Saigon, 1970s).

----
**In actual fact, this was the announcement. A lie or oversimplification is easiest:

http://www.dannen.com/decision/

//Truman radio speech, August 9, 1945 (excerpt) - In his radio speech to the nation on August 9, President Truman called Hiroshima "a military base." //

This is no different from McNamara talking about Vietcong camps or Cheney talking about 'terrorist' headquarters.

 

[oggbashan]

Nothing you presented here changes the fact that the Israeli's are targeting combatans, no matter how shady the definition of combatants has become in a war on terror, where the Palestinians are TARGETING manifestly non combatant civilians.

-Colly

Colly,

I do not think you will ever understand the viewpoint of the weaker party in a war. They do not have the weapons or technology of the stronger party so they use whatever they can.

It has always been that way. War isn't fair. During WWII the Germans used nasty brutal U-boats. The Allies used brave submarines. The German U-boat crews suffered the heaviest losses of any large military unit in any war - 4 out of 5 died.

In the Middle East suicide bombers are the only effective way the weaker party can attack the stronger one, whether in Israel or Iraq. In the UK the provisional IRA were not suicide bombers but some died planting their bombs. The provisional IRA targeted "soft" targets because soft targets cause the maximum impact on public opinion.

I still do not like people being killed, Israeli or Palestinian (or British - one man died trying to prevent conflict between Israeli and Palestinian forces - shot by an Israeli soldier at close range despite wearing fluorescent clothing and carrying no weapon and threatening no one).

Unless the US understands WHY the Palestinians cannot stop the suicide bombers then there will be no peace.

It only takes a few people to make a suicide bomber and if the populace around them even half-believe that the bombers might give them hope they will not be stopped by the Palestinian Authority, nor the Israelis, nor the US.

Just be very thankful that the formerly oppressed minorities in the US did not start a serious and sustained bombing campaign. It would have been impossible to stop and very difficult to rebuild trust across communities afterwards.

While many in the US think in black and white terms "Israel good; Palestine bad" then the killing is likely to go on and on.

Reality has shades of grey.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

//
Well, would you say the people of Hiroshima or Dresden were 'killed by accident' or because of 'close proximity to a legitimate target'?

"Nasty little accident for 50,000 in Hiroshima" ---is this your suggested headline.

Would you say the roughly 1000 casualties by mines in that year (1993) in Cambodia, were 'accidental' or 'close proximity' and how do you know, anyway?

Hiroshima and Dresden were something alike-both intended as demonstrations to the axis. "Look what we can do to you, and there is nothing yhou can do about it." Dresden was not much of a military target and was in central Germany so it had't been hit too much so the allies decided to show what they could do. Fly through and past the German air defenses and destroy a large city with great loss of life, and do so with relative impunity. There was greater loss of life there than there was at Hiroshima. The demonstration didn't work because Germany continued fighting a hopeless war until it was actually overrun by allied forces. I have some trouble feeling too much sympathy for the people who elected Adolph Hitler, because he was actually elected, by a plurality, to the highest office in Germany. Furthermore, the fire-bombing pales in comparison to the atrocities committed by Germany in WW2.

I have often wondered why people refer to Hiroshima but not to Nagasaki. I consider the first atomic bombing to have been necessary but I question the second. Japan was hopelessly beaten by that time, especially after losing Okinawa, and they should have surrendered but they refused. The nuclear bomb was the proverbial two-by-four across the mule's forehead. The alternative would have been a land invasion, with millions of additional casualties. Some American military leaders estimated 50,000 American deaths from land invasions of Kyushu and Honshu but only the most wild-eyed Pollyanna could believe the figures would have been that low. And, of course, the Japanese losses would have been in the millions, many times what they were at Hiroshima. At Okinawa, America suffered 12,500 dead and 36,550 wounded. The Japanese suffered about 110,000 dead. With casualities like that on a relatively small island, imagine what they would have been from a land invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Some people may say that the allied surrender terms were too harsh. They were: unconditional surrender. Some people say that we should have let the conquerors of Nanking and Manila and Singapore and a thousand other cities set their own surrender terms, and lick their wounds and build up their war machine for another attempt. When they finally did surrender, the emperor was allowed to remain and that was the only concession made.

The bombing of Nagasaki could have been delayed, perhaps forever. It was mostly to get Japan to hurry up and surrender because the Soviet Union entered the war after the first bombing, and the USA didn't want them capturing any more booty than could be helped. Even considering that, the blame should still be assigned to the Japanese High Command.

Even so, considering all the atrocities committed by citizens of Japan during the war, for instance, there were more people murdered in Nanking than died in both nuclear attacks, I don't cry too much about it.

 

[minsue]

I agree very strongly with you Colly. The fact that a military target is built close to a non-target should not protect the target. When the North Vietnamese built anti-aircraft cmplacements on the roofs of hospitals or schools, the Americans took them out, doing damage to the building underneath, and the NV then cried "ATROCITY". When they pointed a finger at the US, four fingers were pointing back at themselves, which was appropriate.

When the Iranians sent crowds of children across Iraqu minefields to clear them, they were responsible for the deaths and injuries to the children, not the Iraqis.

If the majority of Palestinian innocents killed by the Israeli army were killed because they happened to be in a building 'built near a military target', I would agree with you wholeheartedly. Israel uses US made helicopters and routinely shoots missles at cars on busy streets that are suspected to have leaders of terrorist organizations in them. Noncombatants are regularly killed as 'collateral damage' when this is done and, at least locally, it's on the last fucking page of the newspaper every time. I have no sympathy for the terrorist suicide bombers and the networks that arm and recruit them, but Israel lost the moral high ground in my mind when I started reading all the way to the last fucking page of the newspaper instead of just the front page stories showing each suicide bombing.

- Mindy