Hello Tom
Hi folks,
I hope everyone is reading all the attachments to articles on this topic.
I'd hoped everyone would be reading the responses, but it seems not,
in your case:
Somebody quoted it as a source and I told him it's an anti-source.
The links at the Weekly Standard entry at Disinfopedia unearth
virtually the whole web of deceit:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Weekly_Standard
Weekly Standard Magazine - SourceWatch
http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200
5-August/002200.html
[Biofuel] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk?
I found the one in the Weekly Standard to be very credible.
Sorry, but I think that's hilarious! The Weekly Standard credible! ROFL!!!!
Keith
Thanks Greg and April for this information. Perhaps that´s my own
personal bias. How would you attack this Chris B. and Hakan? More
government propaganda?
Why Truman Dropped the Bomb
From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now
have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision.
by Richard B. Frank
08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44
Tom Irwin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:49:37 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
doug,
<*Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender,
you've been misinformed. this is a misrepresentation of the facts. it was
hirohito himself, quite on his own, that asked the soviets to mediate a peace.
later, the government junta voted unanimously in favor of sending an envoy to
moscow. the peace faction and the hardliners had their own reasons for
supporting the idea, but the point is that they took that action in
the first place
because hirohito wanted them to.
these events transpired because the situation in japan was progressively
deteriorating. there were growing fears that total social and
economic collapse,
and, therefore, most likely political collapse as well, were imminent.
furthermore, it was not the united states' intent to force a quick surrender
by using the bombs. that simply did not enter into the calculus i.e. saving
so many american or japanese lives was not the motivation for nuking japan.
>It's not clear that the U.S. population would
>have accepted just hanging around fully mobilized at war waiting for
>six months or a year until the Japanese
you're presenting kind of a worst case scenario of how a blockade strategy,
as opposed to invading, might have unfolded. besides, the disposition of the
american people is a red herring and highly speculative (another echo of the
'aussie gun control' argument). nor does it have any bearing on whether or
not bombing hiroshima and nagasaki were inhumane.
-chris b.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
