Sunday Morning Newspaper Laugh

[Spehro Pefhany]

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us the
solution ?
...Jim Thompson

He could volunteer for Afghanistan where he'd have some (friendly)
company while being shot at.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Stephen J. Rush]

: "Stephen J. Rush" wrote
: > It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.
: The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
:
: You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two
atomic devices on two
: separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was a military target.

"Japan" was a Military target! The two bombs saved the lives of
between 100,000 and 250,000 American service men. Good trade off!
Like the Japanese weren't torturing and murdering civilians all
along, we are just better at it!

Those two nukes probably saved more _Japanese_ than they killed, given
the plans for an open-ended resistance to the invasion. There was,
for instance, a program to arm children with bamboo spears. The war
would have ground on well into the fifties.

 

[Mark J.]

In news:[email protected] (Stephen J. Rush):

Those two nukes probably saved more _Japanese_ than they killed, given
the plans for an open-ended resistance to the invasion. There was,
for instance, a program to arm children with bamboo spears. The war
would have ground on well into the fifties.

So... the end justifies the means?

Or is it the other way around?

 

[Brian Trosko]

Those two nukes probably saved more _Japanese_ than they killed, given
the plans for an open-ended resistance to the invasion. There was,
for instance, a program to arm children with bamboo spears. The war
would have ground on well into the fifties.

And for point of comparison, in the final 5 months of the war,
conventional bombing of Japan claimed the lives of over 900,000 civilians.
Complaining about the nukes is silly.

 

[Roger Gt]

"Mark J." <127.0.0.1> wrote in message
: In (Stephen J.
Rush):
: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:52:05 GMT, "Roger Gt" <[email protected]>
wrote:
: >
: >>
: >> "Myron Samila" wrote
: >>> "Stephen J. Rush" wrote
: >>>> It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.
: >>> The Russian (Winter) stopped the German war machine.
: >>>
: >>> You're right! But what a way to end a war eh? Dropping two
atomic
: >>> devices on two separate days on civilians? Pearl Harbor was
a
: >>> military target.
: >>
: >> "Japan" was a Military target! The two bombs saved the lives
of
: >> between 100,000 and 250,000 American service men. Good trade
off!
: >> Like the Japanese weren't torturing and murdering civilians
all
: >> along, we are just better at it!
: >
: > Those two nukes probably saved more _Japanese_ than they
killed, given
: > the plans for an open-ended resistance to the invasion. There
was,
: > for instance, a program to arm children with bamboo spears.
The war
: > would have ground on well into the fifties.
:
: So... the end justifies the means?
: Or is it the other way around?
:
Yes!

 

[John Fields]

In news:[email protected] (Stephen J. Rush):


So... the end justifies the means?

Or is it the other way around?

 

[Stephen J. Rush]

In news:[email protected] (Stephen J. Rush):


So... the end justifies the means?

Or is it the other way around?

Would killing many more people in smaller batches have been better?
Or should we have just called it all off and gone home, leaving Japan
to the Soviets? I'm sure that they would have put down the
resistance, by means that would have made the Nazis look like
gentlemen.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Nice to hear your impartial opinion.

 

[Bill Sloman]

War isn't a zero-sum game. The Soviets wound up holding half of
Europe, but they took a lot of casualties and would have been overrun
without the combination of German stupidity, Western assistance, and
their old co-belligerant "Generalissimo Winter."

It can be argued that the big winner was Japan.

And Germany, on the same basis.

And the basic German stupidy was invading Russia in the first place -
a silly idea that under-valued the Russians in accordance with
Hilter's stupid ideas about the superiority of the German "race"
(another stupid idea) and the congenital inferiority of the Slavs.
Western assistance, such as it was, was useful rather than decisive.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Myron, Since you're so smart, why don't you go to Iraq and show us the
solution ?

...Jim Thompson

If he's that smart, he might have been smart enough to stay out of
Iraq until he could stick the U.N. with working out the solution.

 

[Richard Henry]

"Myron Samila" <[email protected]> reminisced in
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic<[email protected]
om>,

: CNN is about as reliable as PRAVDA (anyone know what PRAVDA was/is??)

http://english.pravda.ru/

Truth.

 

[John Fields]

And the basic German stupidy was invading Russia in the first place -
a silly idea that under-valued the Russians in accordance with
Hilter's stupid ideas about the superiority of the German "race"
(another stupid idea) and the congenital inferiority of the Slavs.
Western assistance, such as it was, was useful rather than decisive.

 

[John Fields]

If he's that smart, he might have been smart enough to stay out of
Iraq until he could stick the U.N. with working out the solution.

 

[John Fields]

Nice to hear your impartial opinion.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum

Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

But facts are subject to an Uncertainty Principle, under which the
magnitude of uncertainty increases exponentially with elapsed time.
Opinions, OTOH, tend to be utterly resistant to change with elapsed
time.

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Fields wrote...

Facts are impartial. Opinions never are. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion.

Facts are usually selected and edited for the purpose of
making an opinion appear to be an impartial fact. Also,
some opinions may in reality be impartial evaluations of
an unbiased collection of facts. :>)

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

 

[Brian Trosko]

So... the end justifies the means?

What else could possibly justify means if not the consequences of them?

 

[Richard Henry]

John Fields <[email protected]> wrote in message

Unless you have some facts to back up your "fact", it's just another
opinionated opinion.

And mine doesn't smell.

 

[John Fields]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum


But facts are subject to an Uncertainty Principle, under which the
magnitude of uncertainty increases exponentially with elapsed time.
Opinions, OTOH, tend to be utterly resistant to change with elapsed
time.

 

[John Fields]

John Fields wrote...

No, it's an opinion.

---
No, it's a fact.

"We orbit the sun." is a fact and is impartial.

"We should orbit the sun a little differently." is an opinion and is not
impartial since it carries a value judgement with it.

The fact that facts are impartial while opinions never are is a fact.