On 12/8/2019 7:33 AM, A Moose in Love wrote:
> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 7:26:12 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 12/7/2019 6:57 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 15:39:49 -0800 (PST), "
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 17:57:08 -0500, Dave Smith
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We may have to cut some slack for the Dutchman. They like to think of
>>>>>> themselves as victims of the German aggression, but there were a lot
>>>>>> more of his countrymen who joined the Nazis than the Resistance.
>>>>>
>>>>> That, true or not, also doesn't justify throwing atomic bombs on
>>>>> civilians. It's quite shocking that you 2 can't see that because of
>>>>> your huge bias.
>>>>>
>>>> What would have been your solution to bringing the war to an end? Senselessly
>>>> killing more 10's of hundreds of thousands people? Just how would you have
>>>> ended it??
>>>
>>> Whatever you do, you don't bomb innocent babies, children, men, women.
>>> That's the kind of stuff you DON'T want. That kind of behaviour is the
>>> problem, not the solution.
>>>
>>
>> What would have been a better solution? Were you there? The Japanese
>> did not care about anyone in the battles all along and they were
>> planning to fight to the end.
>> These are the same people that brought you the Bataan Death March.
>
> The people who were being firebombed and nuked were not responsible for atrocities committed by their regime. They were bystanders caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time. I look at people as individuals not as part of the machine. Encircling Japan would have been a better idea, although it would still have produced casualties among the innocents, but not nearly as many as bombing did.
>
Do you know that for fact? Do you know if it was considered and if it
was why not done? I'm sure you find it easier to fight a war 70 years
later but what would you have done at the time? You don't really know.