From: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org (angry-psychos-digest) To: angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Subject: angry-psychos-digest V7 #166 Reply-To: angry-psychos@smoe.org Sender: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "angry-psychos-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. angry-psychos-digest Sunday, June 9 2002 Volume 07 : Number 166 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: NPR: Online Diarys [Kevin Intoen ] Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR ["Bad Bender" ] Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR [Kevin Intoen ] Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR [Kevin Intoen ] Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR ["Bad Bender" ] NPR: Song Question (HELP!) [InAReverie666@aol.com] NPR-Re: Song Question (HELP!)-NPR ["Bad Bender" ] guitar tabs ["tom tobin" ] another tab request ["tom tobin" ] Re: NPR: Online Diarys [Shanna Hollich ] NPR-Re: Song Question (HELP!)-NPR [InAReverie666@aol.com] Re: NPR: Online Diarys [April Bucher ] Re: NPR: Online Diarys [VioletNightSky@aol.com] npr - ABOUT WAR [Metamorphosized@aol.com] Re: npr - ABOUT WAR ["Bad Bender" ] Re: npr - ABOUT WAR [KrodKnid@aol.com] Re: npr - ABOUT WAR , now its about DeeDee ["Bad Bender" Subject: Re: NPR: Online Diarys LiveJournal is cool. You need an existing member to recommend you, though. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 02:01:07 -0500 From: "Bad Bender" Subject: Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR Patriotism blind someone? I hope you weren't referring to me. Not advocating right or wrong, ok that's fair. Yes we did kill non combatants, we killed allot. No matter how many were killed on either side , that's war and war is hell. We can fight the war in our streets, our country side, our farms, our malls, or we can fight them on their land, their homes and streets. There was plenty of death to go around. The war could have gone on longer, would have killed more innocents, but by dropping those 2 bombs the US ended the war. I didn't hear any second hand military propaganda, I heard it from one of the actual crew members. They knew the war and what was a stake. But hindsight is 20/20. We can not apply today's standards and way of thinking to the events of the past with out thinking we were the wrong ones and somehow "evil". Consider the alternative to the bomb, how would Japan be today? Would they be a state? Would they be a province? > I love how patriotism can blind someone...do you think perhaps that this is the > same reasoning used by the WTC bombers? After all, they could just as easily > (and just as rationally, I might add) claim that by their actions they were > saving "millions of lives" from being destroyed by their enemies -- Israel and > its backer, the US. Now, before anybody gets all righteous and indignant, let me > point out that I'm simply making a case against Bad Bender's reasoning here and > not necessarily advocating the "right" or "wrong" of it. > > If it had been Japan (or Germany, more likely scenario) who had developed the bomb > and hit the US first, we would TO THIS DAY be crying that it was foul play to involve > civilians. > > I don't care what secondhand military propaganda you heard, the simple fact is that > they killed noncombatants. Sure, they may have hit us first at Pearl Harbor, but at > least the target was military and not civilian in nature. > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 07:43:28PM -0500, Bad Bender wrote: > > WW2 was wearing down but the Japanese refused to quit on their Emperor. I > > think it was called Bushido, the way of the warrior. No surrender was the > > flavor of the day. It saved more then a few lives. We knew what it could do > > because of testing in the American deserts. I met one of the Enola Gay crew > > members a few years ago at a USAF Combat Dining-In, he told us the reason > > they dropped the bomb and how, had they not ,more American lives would have > > been lost in the invasion of the Japanese homeland. Since we dropped it > > there have those few Americans that have sought to somehow blame us for > > using excessive force and make us to be the bad guys. Either way, shortly > > after we dropped fat boy the Japs surrendered and our people came home. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how much blame can be given to the weapon that ended WW2 and saved > > > > millions of lives? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > WWII was about to end anyway. It may have saved a few lives, but we really > > > dropped it because we wanted to see what it would do. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 04:14:40 -0400 From: Kevin Intoen Subject: Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 02:01:07AM -0500, Bad Bender wrote: > Patriotism blind someone? I hope you weren't referring to me. Not advocating > right or wrong, ok that's fair. Yes we did kill non combatants, we killed Killing civilians who get in the line of fire is one thing, dropping bombs on a city full of them is quite another. Yes, I'm quite aware that the two cities were not the first bombed in the war, but before, none of the bombs were capable of eliminating everything in one go. > allot. No matter how many were killed on either side , that's war and war is > hell. We can fight the war in our streets, our country side, our farms, our Obviously the Western world believes differently -- that there is such a thing as 'civilized war'. That is why things like the Geneva Convention exist. > malls, or we can fight them on their land, their homes and streets. There > was plenty of death to go around. The war could have gone on longer, would Again -- patriotism at play. Obviously, they did not fight on our streets or countryside, etc, etc, etc. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, the only Japanese activity we saw on our mainland were Americans of Japanese descent, Japanese immigrants, and naturalized Japanese being herded into prison camps due to wartime paranoia. As for THEIR homes and streets, we sure as hell did not fight on them. Why? Because there was nothing but rubble after we blew it all to hell and back. > have killed more innocents, but by dropping those 2 bombs the US ended the > war. I didn't hear any second hand military propaganda, I heard it from one > of the actual crew members. They knew the war and what was a stake. But The crew members were not the people that developed the bomb. They were not the people who built it. One of them was not the President of the United States. They were simply grunts entrusted with an important mission -- do you really think the people in charge would put them in a plane with the bomb without being absolutely sure that they believed completely in what they were doing? Like I said, secondhand (their military masters -> them -> you). > hindsight is 20/20. We can not apply today's standards and way of thinking > to the events of the past with out thinking we were the wrong ones and > somehow "evil". Consider the alternative to the bomb, how would Japan be > today? Would they be a state? Would they be a province? I can and do. I understand but diagree. I also disagree with your assumptions. Like KrodKnid said, the war was winding down. We could easily have prevented further loss of life by demonstrating the bomb's power somewhere other than a CITY FULL OF CIVILIANS. I still fail to see the difference between your reasoning and the WTC bombers' reasoning, when context is removed. [snip] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 05:40:36 -0400 From: Kevin Intoen Subject: Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Bad Bender wrote: [snip] > So what you you have us do? Should we teach our students that we were wrong > in using such force? Should we teach our soliders that shooting civillians > under any surcumstances is wrong? Yeah it sucked but we won and kept out way > of life. In a word -- yes. I don't object to the use of force itself, I wholeheartedly believe in that. What I object to is the use of a military against civilians. And no, not under ANY circumstances, but certainly under the ones we're talking about here. Especially when it concerns a hell of a lot more than just shooting someone. [snip] > Politicians believe in "civilized war". Any combat veteran will tell you > there's nothing "civilized" about it. That's why there's no such thing as prisoners of war, they're just executed. Or ceasefires, never heard of those. [snip] > You missed the point, forgive me if I wasn't clear enough. We can fight > wars on our streets or the enimies streets. Pick one. Do we fight in Main Again, obviously, we did neither. We sat on our streets, and ordered our soldiers 10,000 (or however far away Japan is) miles away to drop a bomb on their streets. > Street Japan or Mian Street America? The Japanese were hard core fighters. > They were tough and we had already fought in the Atlantic. What it comes > down to to is how was the agressor and who won the war? If the US was such a > horriable country, if we were so corrupt, why did we stop with 2 bombs? Why > not make Japan a glass factory? Politics and international support. It would have weakened the US greatly to have done so, and would probably have made any politician involved fairly unpopular. We like to think of ourselves as the benevolent big guy -- that self-image is easily shattered when you think you're guilty of genocide. Note that I never said the people were corrupt, just the politicians and the government. [snip] > I believe they knew they were going to end the war with this bomb. Sure, by blowing up civilians. My point was simply that they were not the ones who made the decision, they only knew the reasoning/propaganda that was given to them to ensure their agreement. [snip] > Military masters? Try commanders that breif the crew on what they are doing. Yes, but who told the commanders to brief the cerw? Who told the people that told the commanders? By 'military masters' I simply meant the entire chain of command up to the original decision-makers. [snip] > Where could we have demonstrated the power of the weapon? You honestly Like I said, here's an idea: somewhere besides a city full of civilians. Just off the top of my head, why not a ceasefire and a meeting at a neutral point such as a desert island, or the Arctic, etc, by the top brass? > believe the Japanese would have listened to us? Do you honestly believe they With a suitable demonstration, yes. > would have just looked at tape reels of the bombs effects and threw their > hands up? They needed proof alright. We gave it to them twice. You seem very See above. > sure in your stance against use of the A-Bomb. Will you then visit the Pearl You're missing the point. I'm against the use of military against civilians, whether it be the atomic bomb or a platoon of archers. > Harbor memorial on December 7th this year and state your opinion to tthe > crowd? If an enemy over three times our size dropped a a-bomb on us 2 Will you pay for my plane ticket there and back? Let me turn that qusetion around. Are you willing to fly to Japan and give speeches on August 6 and 9 and go to whatever memorial(s) they have erected and give a speech about why you were right and why two entire cities had to be wiped from the map? With that being said, I think this is more of an emotional appeal than anything having to do with logic. > times, would you keep fighting? We ended the war we didn't start. We > prevailed and they lost. I feel nonregret having dropped the bomb. Don't > mess with the US.! Yes, patriotism is definitely blinding you. I've asked you two times how your view differs from the WTC bombers' view, context removed. You've ignored this question both times -- I can only take that to mean that you are unable to answer. "My country, right or wrong" be damned. Fanaticism of any sort is bad, whether it be religious or political or patriotic. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 10:17:12 -0500 From: "Bad Bender" Subject: Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR > Again, obviously, we did neither. We sat on our streets, and ordered our > soldiers 10,000 (or however far away Japan is) miles away to drop a bomb on > their streets. > We also sat here and ordered out soliders to storn the beaches of Normandy and fight in the French country side. > [snip] > > Where could we have demonstrated the power of the weapon? You honestly > Like I said, here's an idea: somewhere besides a city full of civilians. > Just off the top of my head, why not a ceasefire and a meeting at a neutral > point such as a desert island, or the Arctic, etc, by the top brass? > Then we'd piss off the enviromental activists because we killed some penguins! : ) > > Harbor memorial on December 7th this year and state your opinion to tthe > > crowd? If an enemy over three times our size dropped a a-bomb on us 2 > Will you pay for my plane ticket there and back? > My wallet is looking then, can you spot me a 20 till next week? > Let me turn that qusetion around. Are you willing to fly to Japan and give > speeches on August 6 and 9 and go to whatever memorial(s) they have erected > and give a speech about why you were right and why two entire cities had to > be wiped from the map? > Sure, then before they could complain I'd point out all the aid and rebuilding the US did for Japan and how now so many years later they are better because they don't have to spend money on a military, we take care of em'. > Yes, patriotism is definitely blinding you. I've asked you two times how > your view differs from the WTC bombers' view, context removed. You've > ignored this question both times -- I can only take that to mean that you > are unable to answer. > I am unable to answer that question. I'm not a terrorist, I don't have that mindset. I don't believe that another country is the "great satan". No one can answer it because the motivations are so varied. Is it Israel? Is it the US? Is it the US in Saudi? Patriotism , I'll admit, does shade my view. I've lived abroad and seen how others live, even in our allies countries, we have it best. > "My country, right or wrong" be damned. Fanaticism of any sort is bad, whether > it be religious or political or patriotic. > I don't know about that, the founding fathers were fanatics and they did some good with it. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:04:37 EDT From: InAReverie666@aol.com Subject: NPR: Song Question (HELP!) Recently i re-heard a song that i had heard about a year ago with the lines "i climbed a mountain in your heart" i have absolutely no idea who sang it and it's been bothering me for a few weeks now. i've been racking my brain and have come up with nothing. it's a guy singer, i know that much. please! please! please! if anyone knows who it is let me know! i'm losing my mind over here!!! thanks so much!! ~~whitney ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:49:03 -0500 From: "Bad Bender" Subject: NPR-Re: Song Question (HELP!)-NPR Was it a male or female that sang it? What style of music? > > Recently i re-heard a song that i had heard about a year ago with the lines > "i climbed a mountain in your heart" i have absolutely no idea who sang it > and it's been bothering me for a few weeks now. i've been racking my brain > and have come up with nothing. it's a guy singer, i know that much. please! > please! please! if anyone knows who it is let me know! i'm losing my mind > over here!!! thanks so much!! > ~~whitney ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:57:11 -0400 From: "tom tobin" Subject: guitar tabs can anyone help me out with tabs to hello..i found it online once but can't find it now..it was for the "full band version" thanks guys. just e-mail me if you can help ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:32:57 -0400 From: "tom tobin" Subject: another tab request also..does anyone have the chords to walk the walk? - -tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:09:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Shanna Hollich Subject: Re: NPR: Online Diarys - --- Andrea Horvath wrote: > > What is the best site to get involved in the online > journal phenomenon? It depends on exactly what you're looking for. Here's what I think of the two that I use: DiaryLand, I think, is a little more user-friendly. Slightly easier to set up for the computer illiterate, although if you want to have anything that looks half-decent you'll have to know a little bit of HTML so you don't have to use a DL template. But, other DL users are usually quite friendly about helping newbies out with all that stuff. DiaryLand is more for actual "diary" type entries - rather personal, introspective deals that show more of your inner thoughts, feelings, and emotions, as opposed to "This is what I ate for breakfast today." LiveJournal, on the other hand, is better for shorter, every-day types of entries. It's still pretty easy to use, but not as easy to create an account - you must get what's called an "invitation code" from an already existing user, or pay to use the service. This has a tendency to make LJ more of a "community," though, and it is super easy to meet tons of new people and make new friends. LJ Communities are great, too, and are a feature that DL does not offer. I like their comment system, as well. Of course, there are exceptions to all the rules outlined above. And there are plenty of other options, such as DeadJournal and Diary-X. My suggestion would be to visit a wide variety of other peoples' diaries, at least one from each different host site that looks promising, and try to imagine where you would fit in best. Good luck to you with your online journaling, :). ===== Shanna Hollich - Shadow123@poe.org AOL IM: RHFoJO http://shadow123.diaryland.com http://shadow123.stormpages.com http://shadow123.livejournal.com NO S N B- C~ L- O++ CV Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 17:22:44 EDT From: InAReverie666@aol.com Subject: NPR-Re: Song Question (HELP!)-NPR Return-path: From: InAReverie666@aol.com Full-name: In A Reverie666 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:30:51 EDT Subject: Re: NPR-Re: Song Question (HELP!)-NPR To: thegeneral@knology.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10513 X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by demime 0.97c X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain it was a male and i only heard the one line so it was a few second clip. the part i heard was mellow with a high strummy clean guitar riff. his voice sounded a little like the guy from oasis. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 15:02:09 -0700 (PDT) From: April Bucher Subject: Re: NPR: Online Diarys I use www.opendiary.com, which is a paid site...$20 for 6 months, but www.freeopendiary.com doesn't cost a dime! ~April Shanna Hollich wrote: - --- Andrea Horvath wrote: > > What is the best site to get involved in the online > journal phenomenon? It depends on exactly what you're looking for. Here's what I think of the two that I use: DiaryLand, I think, is a little more user-friendly. Slightly easier to set up for the computer illiterate, although if you want to have anything that looks half-decent you'll have to know a little bit of HTML so you don't have to use a DL template. But, other DL users are usually quite friendly about helping newbies out with all that stuff. DiaryLand is more for actual "diary" type entries - rather personal, introspective deals that show more of your inner thoughts, feelings, and emotions, as opposed to "This is what I ate for breakfast today." LiveJournal, on the other hand, is better for shorter, every-day types of entries. It's still pretty easy to use, but not as easy to create an account - you must get what's called an "invitation code" from an already existing user, or pay to use the service. This has a tendency to make LJ more of a "community," though, and it is super easy to meet tons of new people and make new friends. LJ Communities are great, too, and are a feature that DL does not offer. I like their comment system, as well. Of course, there are exceptions to all the rules outlined above. And there are plenty of other options, such as DeadJournal and Diary-X. My suggestion would be to visit a wide variety of other peoples' diaries, at least one from each different host site that looks promising, and try to imagine where you would fit in best. Good luck to you with your online journaling, :). ===== Shanna Hollich - Shadow123@poe.org AOL IM: RHFoJO http://shadow123.diaryland.com http://shadow123.stormpages.com http://shadow123.livejournal.com NO S N B- C~ L- O++ CV Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 19:14:45 EDT From: VioletNightSky@aol.com Subject: Re: NPR: Online Diarys I like Blogger. Easy, free, and a nice selection of pre-made backgrounds. you can host through them or through other sites. www.blogger.com. ~Cara violetnightsky.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 23:44:47 EDT From: Metamorphosized@aol.com Subject: npr - ABOUT WAR why can't you people post a subject title on this bullshit you all talk. i mean its one thing to reply to a topic but now reading all this you all put so much thought in what you think happened or what your theories are,TITLE THE FUCKING EMAIL PROPERLY. i mean why should anyone take anything you all say seriously? ..plus it's a bit disrepectful to Dee Dee Ramone. RIP - DEE DEE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 23:33:46 -0500 From: "Bad Bender" Subject: Re: npr - ABOUT WAR I heard Dee Dee dies but I didn't hear what from? - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:44 PM Subject: npr - ABOUT WAR > > why can't you people post a subject title on this bullshit you all talk. > i mean its one thing to reply to a topic but now reading all this you all put > so much thought in what you think happened or what your theories are,TITLE > THE FUCKING > EMAIL PROPERLY. i mean why should anyone take anything you all say seriously? > ..plus it's a bit disrepectful to Dee Dee Ramone. > > RIP - DEE DEE ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 00:45:36 EDT From: KrodKnid@aol.com Subject: Re: npr - ABOUT WAR In a message dated 6/9/2002 12:33:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, thegeneral@knology.net writes: > I heard Dee Dee dies but I didn't hear what from? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O.D. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 23:49:17 -0500 From: "Bad Bender" Subject: Re: npr - ABOUT WAR , now its about DeeDee He was a druggie huh? You play you pay. I hope it serves as a warning to everyone, though it never seems to. > > In a message dated 6/9/2002 12:33:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > thegeneral@knology.net writes: > > > > I heard Dee Dee dies but I didn't hear what from? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > O.D. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 00:52:46 -0400 From: "Pierce, Marshall" Subject: NPR: Or How I learned to love the bomb. I think that if Pakistan, and India don't get there shit together, that your argument will be mute, because a crime of far greater magnitude will be wrought against the world. Oh, and on an aside, it is a fact that Japanese 'civilians' would have fought, and died to a man, if we had invaded. While I would argue at a Japanese memorial, so as not be disrespectful to those who suffered the tragedy of being the first victims of atomic warfare of my stance, the use of the bomb might have, in fact, saved thousands of Japanese lives. Back to the current nuclear soap opera, I believe the total outright dead from the 2 bombs we dropped was around 50,000 or so , counting the thousands that died or those later that were born disfigured, the higher cancer rate...Yadda yadda, all this will pale to a partial or full nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. I would expect the causality's to be in the millions, and that both countries could be made totally uninhabitable. Then you will have a great displacement of refugee's to where? Hope the UN doesn't move'em to Israel, look how THAT turned out. Israel has nukes to btw, which should, but apparently doesn't make any Arab state nervous, hell, it makes me nervous. Oh, your both right btw, because your expressing opinion, yours, don't confuse that for thinking you know the truth. For like the now famous 'there is no spoon' line, there is in fact no truth - -----Original Message----- From: Bad Bender [mailto:thegeneral@knology.net] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:17 AM To: Kevin Intoen; krodknid@aol.com; angry-psychos@smoe.org Subject: Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR > Again, obviously, we did neither. We sat on our streets, and ordered our > soldiers 10,000 (or however far away Japan is) miles away to drop a bomb on > their streets. > We also sat here and ordered out soliders to storn the beaches of Normandy and fight in the French country side. > [snip] > > Where could we have demonstrated the power of the weapon? You honestly > Like I said, here's an idea: somewhere besides a city full of civilians. > Just off the top of my head, why not a ceasefire and a meeting at a neutral > point such as a desert island, or the Arctic, etc, by the top brass? > Then we'd piss off the enviromental activists because we killed some penguins! : ) > > Harbor memorial on December 7th this year and state your opinion to tthe > > crowd? If an enemy over three times our size dropped a a-bomb on us 2 > Will you pay for my plane ticket there and back? > My wallet is looking then, can you spot me a 20 till next week? > Let me turn that qusetion around. Are you willing to fly to Japan and give > speeches on August 6 and 9 and go to whatever memorial(s) they have erected > and give a speech about why you were right and why two entire cities had to > be wiped from the map? > Sure, then before they could complain I'd point out all the aid and rebuilding the US did for Japan and how now so many years later they are better because they don't have to spend money on a military, we take care of em'. > Yes, patriotism is definitely blinding you. I've asked you two times how > your view differs from the WTC bombers' view, context removed. You've > ignored this question both times -- I can only take that to mean that you > are unable to answer. > I am unable to answer that question. I'm not a terrorist, I don't have that mindset. I don't believe that another country is the "great satan". No one can answer it because the motivations are so varied. Is it Israel? Is it the US? Is it the US in Saudi? Patriotism , I'll admit, does shade my view. I've lived abroad and seen how others live, even in our allies countries, we have it best. > "My country, right or wrong" be damned. Fanaticism of any sort is bad, whether > it be religious or political or patriotic. > I don't know about that, the founding fathers were fanatics and they did some good with it. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 00:55:56 -0400 From: "Pierce, Marshall" Subject: RE: Or How I learned to love the bomb. That was supposed to be would NOT argue....lol - -----Original Message----- From: Pierce, Marshall [mailto:MRPierce@mail.ifas.ufl.edu] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:53 AM To: 'Bad Bender'; 'Kevin Intoen'; 'krodknid@aol.com'; 'angry-psychos@smoe.org' Subject: NPR: Or How I learned to love the bomb. I think that if Pakistan, and India don't get there shit together, that your argument will be mute, because a crime of far greater magnitude will be wrought against the world. Oh, and on an aside, it is a fact that Japanese 'civilians' would have fought, and died to a man, if we had invaded. While I would argue at a Japanese memorial, so as not be disrespectful to those who suffered the tragedy of being the first victims of atomic warfare of my stance, the use of the bomb might have, in fact, saved thousands of Japanese lives. Back to the current nuclear soap opera, I believe the total outright dead from the 2 bombs we dropped was around 50,000 or so , counting the thousands that died or those later that were born disfigured, the higher cancer rate...Yadda yadda, all this will pale to a partial or full nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. I would expect the causality's to be in the millions, and that both countries could be made totally uninhabitable. Then you will have a great displacement of refugee's to where? Hope the UN doesn't move'em to Israel, look how THAT turned out. Israel has nukes to btw, which should, but apparently doesn't make any Arab state nervous, hell, it makes me nervous. Oh, your both right btw, because your expressing opinion, yours, don't confuse that for thinking you know the truth. For like the now famous 'there is no spoon' line, there is in fact no truth - -----Original Message----- From: Bad Bender [mailto:thegeneral@knology.net] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:17 AM To: Kevin Intoen; krodknid@aol.com; angry-psychos@smoe.org Subject: Re: NPR- R.I.P. Dee Dee :(-NPR > Again, obviously, we did neither. We sat on our streets, and ordered our > soldiers 10,000 (or however far away Japan is) miles away to drop a bomb on > their streets. > We also sat here and ordered out soliders to storn the beaches of Normandy and fight in the French country side. > [snip] > > Where could we have demonstrated the power of the weapon? You honestly > Like I said, here's an idea: somewhere besides a city full of civilians. > Just off the top of my head, why not a ceasefire and a meeting at a neutral > point such as a desert island, or the Arctic, etc, by the top brass? > Then we'd piss off the enviromental activists because we killed some penguins! : ) > > Harbor memorial on December 7th this year and state your opinion to tthe > > crowd? If an enemy over three times our size dropped a a-bomb on us 2 > Will you pay for my plane ticket there and back? > My wallet is looking then, can you spot me a 20 till next week? > Let me turn that qusetion around. Are you willing to fly to Japan and give > speeches on August 6 and 9 and go to whatever memorial(s) they have erected > and give a speech about why you were right and why two entire cities had to > be wiped from the map? > Sure, then before they could complain I'd point out all the aid and rebuilding the US did for Japan and how now so many years later they are better because they don't have to spend money on a military, we take care of em'. > Yes, patriotism is definitely blinding you. I've asked you two times how > your view differs from the WTC bombers' view, context removed. You've > ignored this question both times -- I can only take that to mean that you > are unable to answer. > I am unable to answer that question. I'm not a terrorist, I don't have that mindset. I don't believe that another country is the "great satan". No one can answer it because the motivations are so varied. Is it Israel? Is it the US? Is it the US in Saudi? Patriotism , I'll admit, does shade my view. I've lived abroad and seen how others live, even in our allies countries, we have it best. > "My country, right or wrong" be damned. Fanaticism of any sort is bad, whether > it be religious or political or patriotic. > I don't know about that, the founding fathers were fanatics and they did some good with it. ------------------------------ End of angry-psychos-digest V7 #166 ***********************************