Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

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?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
not have been a need to defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses
considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.


As for the attacks on the WTC there was no
military value there. An
argument
could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
targets within the cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists in the
WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated using
"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating two,
three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so
be it." He made no mention of
destroying military assets. His choice of words
clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender,
not destruction of
military
assets.




For weary: I'm the one who stated that however many cities had to be destroyed
by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE located in said cities. Hiroshima
had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line and depot, a airfield and port
facility, and a division's worth of troops garrisoned there. Nagasaki: Mistubushi
aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities and related infrastructure,
an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit on 9 Aug if not for weather)had
a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on.
With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means necessary.
If that meant destroying cities to prevent two invasions of the Japanese
Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather risk: several B-29 aircrews
on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines in the U.S. 6th Army hitting
the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November? Not to mention the American
and British aircrews and sailors directly supporting the invasion. Al-Queda
started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre. They may have started
the war, but we'll finish it.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3fe49de1$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

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?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
not have been a need to defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses
considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.


As for the attacks on the WTC there was no
military value there. An
argument
could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
targets within the cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists in the
WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated using
"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating two,
three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so
be it." He made no mention of
destroying military assets. His choice of words
clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender,
not destruction of
military
assets.




For weary: I'm the one who stated that however many cities had to be
destroyed
by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE located in said cities.
Hiroshima
had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line and depot, a airfield and
port
facility, and a division's worth of troops garrisoned there. Nagasaki:
Mistubushi
aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities and related
infrastructure,
an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit on 9 Aug if not for
weather)had
a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.

With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.

If that meant destroying cities to prevent two invasions of the Japanese
Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather risk: several B-29 aircrews
on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines in the U.S. 6th Army
hitting
the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November? Not to mention the American
and British aircrews and sailors directly supporting the invasion.
Al-Queda
started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre.

No they didn't . The war was declared by OBL in 1995, IIRC.

They may have started
the war, but we'll finish it.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:39:57 GMT, "weary" wrote:


a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.


Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.


Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.


greg
--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:39:57 GMT, "weary" wrote:


a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing
mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so
on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.


Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

No. Do try to follow the thread. Back up a couple of lines and you
can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets
in the city. However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential
area and the assets were only lightly damaged. The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.


With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in
1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.


Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.

Bad news - it isn't working, if we are to believe the number
of heightened terror alerts. Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.

From: "weary"


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.


Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for all
countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near
civilian population centers.

I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the
grave markers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Subject: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
achievements
From: (B2431)
Date: 12/27/03 8:48 PM Pacific

As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the
grave markers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I entered Dachau a few days after it was liberated and before it was cleaned
up.I still have the bad dreams.



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

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 12/28/2003 6:49 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Subject: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
achievements
From: (B2431)
Date: 12/27/03 8:48 PM Pacific

As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many
thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the
grave markers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I entered Dachau a few days after it was liberated and before it was cleaned
up.I still have the bad dreams.



Arthur Kramer

I can only imagine. I have a friend of mine who survived 4 years in Dachau.
Knowing what some people did to survive I never asked him how he did it.

When I saw a square piece of ground about 2 meters per side with a placard
saying "x thousand people are buried here" and saw a wall with a placard
saying "y number of people were shot here" it really brought home the scale.
Unfortunatley in the 24 years since I was there I don't really recall the
numbers cited on the placards.

I wonder how much bigger those numbers would have been if the gas chamber there
was ever made operational.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.


Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for
all
countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near
civilian population centers.

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large
urban
area.


I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki
and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that no civilians would be harmed
so don't you try that strawman as well.


As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima.

When did I do that?

Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen
the
grave markers.

Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
"weary" wrote:

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military target be in a
large urban area.

You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there
were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting
the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall
and Prefectural offices.

There were a lot of homes in the area, but there were a lot of homes
*everywhere* in Japan near anything worth hitting. They had a habit
(and still do) of putting homes on any stretch of urban land that would
hold a building and wasn't urgently needed for anything else.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

From: "weary"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.


Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for
all
countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near
civilian population centers.

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large
urban
area.


I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki
and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that no civilians would be harmed
so don't you try that strawman as well.


OK, so your contention civilians were the intended targets of the atomic
bombings doesn't hold water. The fact remains there were military targets there
and civilians would die in very large numbers in any case. That doesn't make
the atomic bombings a war crime. Only one thing is clear had the war continued
both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been bombed, either atomic or
conventional, again to take out the reast of the targets and those that had
been rebuilt.


As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima.

When did I do that?

Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen
the
grave markers.

Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The difference is the Nazis set out to murder civilians. They murdered about 6
million Jews and about 6 million non Jews in concentration camps, death camps
and execution pits. The was no military benefit to such mass slaughter.

No matter how Japan would be forced to quit hundreds ofthousands of civilians
would have died. I don't understand why that is beyond your comprehension.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired