@ Sully:
One real reason for not trying to kill the Emperor by bomb (quite unlikely to be successful BTW)
was that it would have pretty much insured the death of every allied POW in Japan.
Another is that it would likely have unleashed the militarists from any last bit of restraint.
@ Sully:
I know who's war it was, Sully. You don't need to stress the utter depravity of the Japanese conduct.
The civilians in Tokyo weren't contributing much to the war effort, we knew that, and we knew exactly what to expect when we chose to use incendiaries. The fire and the number of civilian deaths were very close to our expectations.
This one is a bit harder to defend than Hiroshima.
@ Sully:
Marshall was the name on the plan and giving it to him wasn't due to a lack of understanding that he wasn't the fount and origin of the thing.
@ Sully:
I kinda thought that I did understand what you were saying and was just sort of going off.
Really only the first paragraph was for you and simply to point up that the Nobel was for the rebuilding plan.
That Marshall guy, he was like a warmonger.
And to think that Mr. Nobel gave him a prize just for some plan or something to rebuild all them countries that got all knocked down because Allah willed it.
Make no mistake, that WWII was a mistake. Those good Christians from Germany were out to save us all ('cept for a few million folks that came from the ME originally) from Islamist terror before it picked up any steam.
We fought the WRONG enemy. The Germans, once established in Rooshia, woulda swoopt right down on them oil barrens and got holt of them super-sheikhs by their scruffy necks and twisted and twisted and twisted
@ CK MacLeod:
Until something changes, this administration is doing pretty well in projecting calm and deadly serious.
For the last year, we've been pushing Pakistan pretty hard and they've moved a fair bit. We're pushing still and it's going to be of interest to see if we can get something serious mounted against the Haqqani bunch.
We've been in Yemen awhile and might be well-positioned to spear some of the AQ fish swimming out of Pakistan.
@ CK MacLeod:
I've also heard the story of how Hezbollah solved their CIA problem in Lebanon.
It don't work. There's always someone willing to get less human.
Sure we could cut and run like Reagan did, but, you're right, it didn't help.
Didn't help when Clinton did it.
The Cheney option of semi-random violence didn't work either.
The Army wasn't planning to surrender. They were busy passing out pointed sticks to city dwellers and caching weapons and food around the countryside.
@ narciso:
I was fooling around with your double use of the word "moon" in your comment. Lunatic goes to that.
Kyoto was spared because of its cultural significance and because there was no reason at all to blow it up.
@ Sully:
One real reason for not trying to kill the Emperor by bomb (quite unlikely to be successful BTW)
was that it would have pretty much insured the death of every allied POW in Japan.
Another is that it would likely have unleashed the militarists from any last bit of restraint.
@ Sully:
I know who's war it was, Sully. You don't need to stress the utter depravity of the Japanese conduct.
The civilians in Tokyo weren't contributing much to the war effort, we knew that, and we knew exactly what to expect when we chose to use incendiaries. The fire and the number of civilian deaths were very close to our expectations.
This one is a bit harder to defend than Hiroshima.
@ narciso:
A lunatic theory, you madcapped mooncalf.
I like it!
@ Sully:
The firebombing of Tokyo was pretty much over the line as it was. It wasn't silliness to exempt the Palace grounds.
@ Sully:
Marshall was the name on the plan and giving it to him wasn't due to a lack of understanding that he wasn't the fount and origin of the thing.
@ Sully:
I kinda thought that I did understand what you were saying and was just sort of going off.
Really only the first paragraph was for you and simply to point up that the Nobel was for the rebuilding plan.
@ JEM:
We spent our bullets on the wrong target. Iraq was a huge fark-up.
I've always bit a bit cosmetically thick with a tendency toward misapplication.
That Marshall guy, he was like a warmonger.
And to think that Mr. Nobel gave him a prize just for some plan or something to rebuild all them countries that got all knocked down because Allah willed it.
Make no mistake, that WWII was a mistake. Those good Christians from Germany were out to save us all ('cept for a few million folks that came from the ME originally) from Islamist terror before it picked up any steam.
We fought the WRONG enemy. The Germans, once established in Rooshia, woulda swoopt right down on them oil barrens and got holt of them super-sheikhs by their scruffy necks and twisted and twisted and twisted
@ CK MacLeod:
Until something changes, this administration is doing pretty well in projecting calm and deadly serious.
For the last year, we've been pushing Pakistan pretty hard and they've moved a fair bit. We're pushing still and it's going to be of interest to see if we can get something serious mounted against the Haqqani bunch.
We've been in Yemen awhile and might be well-positioned to spear some of the AQ fish swimming out of Pakistan.
@ CK MacLeod:
$40 new at Logos.com, but not much cheaper.
Probably find it in the reference section of a good library.
@ CK MacLeod:
I've also heard the story of how Hezbollah solved their CIA problem in Lebanon.
It don't work. There's always someone willing to get less human.
Sure we could cut and run like Reagan did, but, you're right, it didn't help.
Didn't help when Clinton did it.
The Cheney option of semi-random violence didn't work either.