Actually, I believe that we had six bombs. But that is beside the point, I
think. Two seemed to be enough.
Jon
Gary Smith wrote:
> Also, they only had the two bombs. To make more would take months of
> refining the ore and building the bombs. To use one in an ineffective way
> would have been
Thanks, Rick. Hogwash is a much better term than Barbara Streisand (BS).
Jon
Rick Mathis wrote:
> Hogwash! Traditionally, raping and looting were the means by which the
> troops were paid. "War is Hell" did not originate with Sherman.
At 08:00 PM 11/12/2002, you wrote:
After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with:
I was talking about civilized nations here. Internationally, beginning
about the 1600's or so, there were several treaties which detailed
nations conduct during war. Somewhat similar to the Geneva Conven
At 08:00 PM 11/12/2002, you wrote:
After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with:
I was talking about civilized nations here. Internationally, beginning
about the 1600's or so, there were several treaties which detailed
nations conduct during war. Somewhat similar to the Geneva Conven
After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with:
I was talking about civilized nations here. Internationally, beginning
about the 1600's or so, there were several treaties which detailed nations
conduct during war. Somewhat similar to the Geneva Convention for example,
which proscribes
At 01:43 PM 11/12/2002, you wrote:
At 08:00 PM 11/8/2002 -0700, Steven wrote:
Prior to the Civil War noncombatants were traditionally and legally by
the laws of nations left alone. The concept of total war (targeting
civilians as well as combatants) had its roots in the Civil War (when war
wou
You're both right, but are talking about different periods of history. After the
Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century, military battles, which until then had
been as Rick characterizes them, took on a more "civilized" manner. It lasted maybe
about a century.
Rick Mathis wrote:
> At 08:00 PM 1
At 05:33 AM 11/9/2002 -0700, Steven wrote:
Stephen,
Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States
maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a
"demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same
purpose.
This is an excellent questi
At 08:00 PM 11/8/2002 -0700, Steven wrote:
Prior to the Civil War noncombatants were traditionally and legally by the
laws of nations left alone. The concept of total war (targeting civilians
as well as combatants) had its roots in the Civil War (when war would be
poured out upon all nations) b
It's not hard to shield against caesium; I wouldn't worry if I were her. The energy
is less than 1 MEV by a long shot; only a few hundred thousand KEV, if I recall
correctly. Enough to ionize upon contact, but it doesn't require much more than a
lead-lined room to keep it shielded.
"Elmer L. Fairb
At 12:45 11/9/2002 -0700, Steven wrote:
The primary target was Kokura, a major munitions manufacturing center.
Kokura was obscured by clouds and smoke (leftover from an earlier raid on
a nearby city) so the bombadier couldn't get an exact target despite three
separate passes. The secondary ta
At 09:31 11/9/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
I was in one of the classrooms at Parirenwatwa Hospital (formerly Sir Sanford
Fleming Hospital) in Harare, Zimbabwe, about 7 or 8 years ago, and saw a
display
of what happened when a janitor picked up a small vial of caesium powder
and put
it in his pocke
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
But my whole point is that it is SO easy to sit back and second
guess what might have been or could have been or whatever 57 years ago. But
all those who do this are not in the position that President Truman was.
Truman fired MacArthur.
We visited my brother-in-law in St. George, just south of you, in February
2000, and they had to turn the air-conditioning on at night for us. I am not making
this up.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
> At least when the temperature gets cold here (Cedar City area) in February
> I can jump in the car an
No, I'm the one who said we should write in Hinckley.
Stacy.
At 07:59 PM 11/09/2002 -0700, you wrote:
This from the guy who wants to elect President Hinckley and curse with him a
politician's job? ;-)
Paul Osborne wrote:
> Jon wisely said:
> >Those who want to fault the US for what we
>
Well, you're a pretty good student of the war, that's for sure.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
> At 08:12 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
>
> >Hmm, which reminds me of my other trivia question that I'm not sure I phrased
> >properly. I was trying to bring out that the French fleet had been taken to
> >French
At least when the temperature gets cold here (Cedar City area) in February
I can jump in the car and in 40 minutes be in short sleeve weather.
--
Steven Montgomery
At 08:19 PM 11/9/2002, you wrote:
Yet another week in Moose Jaw, but in early February this time. Maybe
we'll allow a
side-trip to
Yet another week in Moose Jaw, but in early February this time. Maybe we'll allow a
side-trip to Medicine Hat, the 40-40 city (where it's either plus 40 or minus 40 o
C; nothing in between).
Steven Montgomery wrote:
> LDS, and the plane was named after his mother. What do I win now?
>
> --
> Stev
At 08:12 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Hmm, which reminds me of my other trivia question that I'm not sure I phrased
properly. I was trying to bring out that the French fleet had been taken to
French West Africa (Algiers?) for protection when France was invaded. The
British
scuttled the entire Frenc
As per my other post, I may not have phrased this well, but note that I
capitalized "Ally" as in "Allies" or "Allied forces" as opposed to "Axis" forces.
It was the British, who scuttled the French fleet in N. Africa -- I'm pretty sure
it was in Algiers harbour -- so they wouldn't be used by Vichy
>And I think you may be a bloodthirsty man. I will not say definitely,
>however, because I am not supposed to judge mankind, Jesus is. You may
>very well have good motives, but I think you should watch them closely.
Hey, at least I know how to win a war and that is the purpose of fighting
a w
Actually I was thinking of Norway. Poland was considered (wrongly, of course) a
combatant and was, of course, invaded by Germany which started the war. Britain
had not guaranteed their neutrality, but had said it would declare war if Germany
invaded, which is what happened. Britain occupied Norway
It's not your crosshairs that worry me as long as you can't read a map
"Kill-a-watts? Is that a light bulb or a target?" "I want gas, not leeders..."
"How come all these up-and-down liney things on the map crowd so close together
up here?"
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >(plus the usual Canuckistani
Very good! Another week in Moose Jaw for our boy genius :-)
(You realize, of course, that Moose Jaw is our equivalent of a Fargo joke -- you
know, first prize is one week, second prize is two weeks. Actually, it's also the
site of an airbase where our military pilots are trained. My cousin's husba
This from the guy who wants to elect President Hinckley and curse with him a
politician's job? ;-)
Paul Osborne wrote:
> Jon wisely said:
> >Those who want to fault the US for what we
> >did can just stuff it. Those who in eternal ingratitude want to blame
> the
> >nasty old US for being so
And I think you may be a bloodthirsty man. I will not say definitely,
however, because I am not supposed to judge mankind, Jesus is. You may
very well have good motives, but I think you should watch them closely.
Stacy.
At 05:54 PM 11/09/2002 -0600, you wrote:
Jon wisely said:
>Those who wan
LDS, and the plane was named after his mother. What do I win now?
--
Steven Montgomery
At 03:49 PM 11/9/2002, you wrote:
Steven wins first prize! A one-week holiday in beautiful downtown Moose Jaw in
the second week of January.
Okay. Here's another question: what was the religious denomination o
Jon wisely said:
>Those who want to fault the US for what we
>did can just stuff it. Those who in eternal ingratitude want to blame
the
>nasty old US for being so bad can stuff it as well.
And let all the congregation say AMEN! Dropping the bombs on Japan was
wise and the making of more nuclea
>(plus the usual Canuckistani comeback, which is that given what y'all
are [not]
>taught about geography in school, we have no need to fear, because we
know you'd
>have to find us first...)
Hey Marc; would you mind stepping out of my cross hairs as you are
blocking my vision. ;-)
Paul O
[EMAIL P
At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Trivia question: what major Ally's naval assets were destroyed by another
Ally,
and why?
This was a harder one, but I think I remember it was the Germans who
scuttled Italy's ships to prevent them from falling into Allied hands. Am I
right?
--
Steven Mont
At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Trivia question: who first broke neutrality in WWII?
Great Britain, September 3, 1940, ostensibly to guarantee the territorial
integrity of Poland. However after the war Poland was divvied up to the
Soviets--so what the heck was WWII fought for?
Interesting
At 03:46 PM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Trivia question: who was the first country to launch a raid on residential
areas
in an enemy country in WWII, and what was the city involved?
Great Britain, May 11, 1940. They bombed the quiet peaceful town known as
Westphalia which was miles from any front. T
the cooling water coming out of the Nuke
> power plant I can see from my house.
>
> So you see, the word of wisdom was clearly correct in warning us against
> beer but not against nuke power plants.
>
> Jon
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Cobabe" <
I just thought of something else, in addition to my original response. I should
actually give in on this. For 3 reasons:
1. I was wrong when I said AECL Med Prods (now known as Theratronics, and along
with Nordion, part of MDS) was one of the few sources of radioactive caesium
isotopes. I was in a
I *am* an industry expert, Jon. I spent 5 years working for the medical products
division of Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., one of the few suppliers of radioactive
caesium still left (and we even know how to spell it right!). Caesium
contamination is only easy to take care of if the decon/detox is ini
was clearly correct in warning us against
beer but not against nuke power plants.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Cobabe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
>
> J
Sorry, Marc, but you are wrong. This information comes from several experts
in this field who deal with the actual (expected) contaminants. Neither you
nor I are experts, so from my perspective, you lose. Spreading hysteria
must be a Canadian sport, which has filtered down to the anti-nuke folks
Steven wins first prize! A one-week holiday in beautiful downtown Moose Jaw in
the second week of January.
Okay. Here's another question: what was the religious denomination of the pilot,
and after whom did he name the plane? (I'm thinking specifically of the Enola Gay
here)
Steven Montgomery wrot
Dresden was not an industrial city. You may be confusing it with Leipzig, which
got off relatively light. What Dresden was was a centre of transportation for
central Europe, a transfer point for many trains and highways. It was chockfull
of refugees when the RAF bombed it. What little heavy industr
You should be more concerned about wax buildup ;-)
Stacy Smith wrote:
> Yes, and for a while I was afraid to eat Hershey bars because I understood
> the company was in the vacinity of Three Mile Island.
>
> Stacy.
>
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Park
Stacy Smith wrote:
> Thanks for answering. I guess I'm worried for a couple of reasons. Even
> though nuclear bombs are probably hard to maintain probably undetonated,
> there's always a supply out there. Not only that, but many terrorists love
> to come to us through Canada.
This is mislead
We (aka the real world, the rest of the world, etc.) are not afraid that your
troops' military training isn't up to snuff*, we just hope your CiC knows that
it's "ready, aim, fire," not "ready, fire, aim." ;-)
*As I'm tempted to suggest to Jonah Greenberg, perhaps we really *do* need a good
invadi
I noted on this list many years ago, that BH Liddell Hart wrote a book in
the late 60's or early 70's, I think, called "A History of the Second World
War" in which much of this was disclosed. The Japanese tried to get to the
US by going through the Soviets, who, for their own imperialistic reasons
You know you have been hit because there is a great big explosion, and the
guys with the Geiger counters say pops!
That's how you know.
What are you talking about with the Japanese??? Do you actually know what a
dirty bomb is?
It is a conventional explosive with radioactive material surrounding
At 11:34 AM 11/9/2002, Marc wrote:
Incidentally, one little irony that I'm not sure has been brought up,
although I'm
sure Mark especially knows this, and probably many others here, is that
Nagasaki
wasn't the first choice for the second bomb. The original target was
clouded over
that day, so
Yes, and for a while I was afraid to eat Hershey bars because I understood
the company was in the vacinity of Three Mile Island.
Stacy.
At 07:08 PM 11/09/2002 +, you wrote:
Jon Spencer wrote:
---
Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the
envirowackos have stirred up, the
Jon Spencer wrote:
---
Of course, with all the hysteria over nuclear power that the
envirowackos have stirred up, the emotional damage would be much
greater.
---
Creating terror is the real objective of terrorism, isn't it? What does
it matter that dirty bombs are ineffective at inflicting ca
Thanks for answering. I guess I'm worried for a couple of reasons. Even
though nuclear bombs are probably hard to maintain probably undetonated,
there's always a supply out there. Not only that, but many terrorists love
to come to us through Canada. They take up residence here like normal
o
There's a difference, Stacy, between a true thermonuclear bomb and a so-called
dirty bomb. A dirty bomb uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive
material around. Depending on the circumstances, this can be quite deadly, and is
hard to clean up after, and its effects can be pernicious, but
>The primary objective is to kill people and
>break things, with more success than the enemy. Morality aside, this is
>the reality of warfare.
Amen. Kill the enemy!!
That is what I learned when I served in the US Army for a brief period.
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
>Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States
>maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a
>"demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same
>purpose.
Stephen was right, Steven. Your demonstration idea is too risky. We had
to d
-Steven-
> Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United
> States maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians.
Like Jim, I don't know what constitutes "moral high ground" in a war.
Note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial cities, and thus
legitimate targets,
>It might depress you further to know that the United States was
>instrumental in turning over nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Major Racey
>Jordan wrote a book entitled, _Major Jordan's Diaries_, about his part,
>unbeknownst to him at the time, of delivering weapons grade uranium,
plans,
>diagr
It's *not* that simple. You can't just shower off caesium particles, which get
absorbed into the skin, and get breathed in to the lungs. Cobalt 60 dust is even
worse, but harder to obtain since the way it normally comes for medical use is in
tiny cylinders 1 mm long and about .2 mm across, packed
Steven Montgomery wrote:
---
Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States
maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a
"demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same
purpose.
---
I don't know who was morally right or wrong in
Stephen,
Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States
maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a
"demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same
purpose.
--
Steven Montgomery
At 01:01 AM 11/9/2002, you wrote:
-Steven quotes
-Steven quotes _The New American Magazine_-
> This current display, therefore, repeats the notion that the
> dropping of the bombs by the U.S. brought Japan to the peace
> table and saved countless lives on both sides. But this
> historical view, like the original commentary intended for the
> exhi
Then why weren't the Japanese able to overcome the effects? The key here,
I believe, is how would we know we had been hit to take the showers? Plus,
what if they're laced with bioweapons?
Stacy.
At 01:52 AM 11/09/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioact
Actually, dirty bombs are not a big deal from a radioactivity point of view.
If one is exposed to a dirty nuke, one only has to get to a complete shower
(at home will do just fine) within a couple of hours, and there will be no
long term effects. The cleanup will be a pain to be sure, but not a re
Only if it were a rationalization. The Chinese are still suffering today
because of the biological weapons the Japanese used on them. The Japanese
offensive was brutal and criminal beyond what I can comprehend.
That only a few Japanese died compared to the excesses of their war
campaigns should
It may be a cliché to you, but it is not a cliché to me. How did the Twin
Towers disappear? How did the Pentagon get zapped? How did the Twin Towers
get bombed? How did all of the threats that were aborted without us ever
knowing get enabled?
Distance is a barrier only to major movements of ar
At 11:00 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the
most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can
plant
in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will
not
forgive us for this.
If we are to avoid
I was hoping for some. Actually, I have given quite a bit of thought to
this question, and I have had a very difficult time with it.
Jon
> After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
> I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we should not preemptively
> defend ourselves, and ONE H
At 10:42 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
Steve,
I still stay that all out war is always on the table when it comes to
preserving ones country, religion, and liberties--notwithstanding what a
church leader has said on the subject from the not so distance past. I'm
not prepared to see my country go down f
Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the
most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can
plant
in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will
not
forgive us for this.
If we are to avoid extermination, if the world is
Dropping currently powerful nuclear bombs could also mean our destruction
as a nation, any way you see it.
Stacy.
At 11:42 PM 11/08/2002 -0600, you wrote:
Steve,
I still stay that all out war is always on the table when it comes to
preserving ones country, religion, and liberties--notwithstand
Steve,
I still stay that all out war is always on the table when it comes to
preserving ones country, religion, and liberties--notwithstanding what a
church leader has said on the subject from the not so distance past. I'm
not prepared to see my country go down for any reason even if it meant
the
At 06:32 PM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
>Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose
their
>lives in such an attack?
IMO, that's all part of the deal. War is hell but we must fight it to win
at minimal cost to our own side and if nuclear bombs will achieve that
end, I am all
>Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose
their
>lives in such an attack?
IMO, that's all part of the deal. War is hell but we must fight it to win
at minimal cost to our own side and if nuclear bombs will achieve that
end, I am all for it. Whoever attacks this count
Thanks for that -- I wasn't aware of this. I'm not surprised that it involved China,
actually.
Mark Gregson wrote:
>
> > Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of
> > the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other
> > than accusations
Mark Gregson wrote:
>
> > It is quite
> > clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
> > American.
>
> I've already explained on this list some years ago that the nukes did not end the
>war. You can disbelieve it, but it's best not to read what actually happened in
...with sarcasm. Not to be taken seriously.
Jon Spencer wrote:
> When logic fails, attack! :-)
>
> Jon
>
> Marc A. Schindler wrote:
>
> If it's so smart, then you won't mind giving it all your money. Obviously it
> knows what to do with it better than you do. ;-)
>
> Paul Osborne wrote:
>
> > Af
> Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of
> the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other
> than accusations of such from the left, during the Gulf War.
I heard President George Bush state at the beginning of the Gulf War that th
Jon Spencer wrote:
> I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for
> any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite
> clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
> American.
>
> When did we ever issue a real th
Try buying one of those military special gliders that one runs on one's
back or whatever.
Stacy.
At 01:55 PM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
There is no "other side of the world" anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of
course, it is probably easier t
Ouch! If they were radioactive do you think I'd want that? Unless the
Lord intends everything that's brought by them to all of a sudden become
free of radiation. That may be a bigger miracle than any prophet has ever
seen happen.
Stacy.
At 02:11 PM 11/08/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much p
There is what I generally call the Covenant of Ether, that I think John's talking
about here. It doesn't just apply to the U.S., imo, but to all countries of the
new world (in fact, Pres. Kimball likened Zion to an eagle, with two wings, one
south and one north). Look at all the countries of this
Going through this world as blind is challenge enough. Going through the
same after nuclear attack I cannot fathom.
Stacy.
At 05:12 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote:
In one sense -the temporal one - I agree with you. I understand that you
are blind. To me, that would be devastating at first.
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
Or are you thinking we could have manna again? I guess that's a
possibility. I guess I'm saying it wouldn't be a very desirable world.
Maybe radioactive ravens could bring you morsels. --JWR
///
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for
any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
The same rat
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
There is no "other side of the world" anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of
course, it is probably easier to get to North Carolina from Baghdad than
from where you live, but I digress. :-)
This is a cliche. Of course there is an "other side of th
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I see nothing in the scriptures which says that we should not preemptively
defend ourselves, and ONE HAS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME COMPARING NEPHITES
SITUATIONS TO OUR CURRENT SITUATIONS.
---
Any thoughts on this statement? --JWR
/
Yes, I've started getting those.
Stacy.
At 03:26 PM 11/08/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Stacy:
Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there
wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about cooking?
We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not s
Stacy:
Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there
wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about cooking?
We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not survive nuclear
attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking about. Or are
In one sense -the temporal one - I agree with you. I understand that you
are blind. To me, that would be devastating at first. I would hope that I
could learn to cope.
But I do believe that no matter how hard things were, it would be somehow
fulfilling to be a part of the final struggle, so lon
Yes, but merely in terms of numbers, I guess I was thinking that there
wouldn't be too many desirables around to date, etc. How about
cooking? We probably would all have to hunt as plant life would not
survive nuclear attack. Those were the kinds of things I was thinking
about. Or are you t
The Lord will restore them to perfect bodies if needed. He's a really nice
guy, I hear. Or perhaps they will have gifts or powers that renders their
disability irrelevant.
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
> If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I
> be able to understand
Right. Uh huh. Sure. I don't think so. There was no credible threat of
the use nukes by the US in the Korean War, and no threat whatsoever, other
than accusations of such from the left, during the Gulf War.
Jon
Mark Gregson wrote:
> > When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since W
If I can't understand how eight people survived after the ark, how will I
be able to understand only 28? Suppose some of those 28 are handicapped?
Stacy.
At 04:27 PM 11/08/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each
brother. So there will be at
And we're diggin' as fast as we can, right? :-)
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
> We already have the moral low ground. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html
Well, we know that at one point there will be seven sisters for each
brother. So there will be at least 8 people left. But wait! There will be
two apostles, which means there must be at least on President, so that's 3
guys plus 21 gals - 28 people.
And remember, whoever gives his life for me wi
Collateral damage would take on a whole new meaning!
Jon
Steven Montgomery wrote:
Not only that but what about the innocents who would undoubtedly lose their
lives in such an attack?
--
Steven Montgomery
At 10:09 AM 11/8/2002, you wrote:
>You weren't attacked by a nation. That's the problem.
>
Yes, it is a moral issue. You know my feelings about politics.
There is no "other side of the world" anymore, or hadn't you noticed. Of
course, it is probably easier to get to North Carolina from Baghdad than
from where you live, but I digress. :-)
There is no obvious manner in which to equate
> It is quite
> clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
> American.
I've already explained on this list some years ago that the nukes did not end the war.
You can disbelieve it, but it's best not to read what actually happened in Japan if
you want to maintai
My sentiments exactly. Do you really call that "winning," for the few of
us that are left? I suppose in some ways it is. At least those of us who
are left will deserve to be left. But for a while we will have to go
through torment, and don't ask me to look forward to that.
Stacy.
At 10:41
When logic fails, attack! :-)
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
If it's so smart, then you won't mind giving it all your money. Obviously it
knows what to do with it better than you do. ;-)
Paul Osborne wrote:
> After much pondering, Paul Osborne favored us with:
> >The President of the United Sta
I do not believe that you can use the WWII use of nukes as a precedent for
any action today, unless we were again at that decision point. It is quite
clear that the use of nukes in WWII saved many lives, both Japanese and
American.
When did we ever issue a real threat to use nukes since WWII? As
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
I agree, but no matter what we do we will be overrun. I don't know if I
agree with the prevailing LDS sentiment that we will prevail, either. I
suppose one has to ask what is meant by "prevail." If you mean win but
only with a tiny fraction
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
I believe that sometime soon, someone will use a tactical nuke to take out a
carrier battlegroup - they have no other way of doing it. If we were to use
nukes now, then we would create a situation where we had sowed the seeds of
our own loss. We
I agree, but no matter what we do we will be overrun. I don't know if I
agree with the prevailing LDS sentiment that we will prevail, either. I
suppose one has to ask what is meant by "prevail." If you mean win but
only with a tiny fraction of people left, I don't really call that winning.
S
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
