On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 8:43:18 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
> I don't understand why we are putting sanctions on Russia.

Yes, you are right. You don't understand.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:19:05 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
> Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > John Doe wrote:
> >> I don't understand why we are putting sanctions on Russia. THE
> >> SANCTIONS ARE HURTING AMERICANS MORE THAN RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE
> >> HURT AMERICANS. Seems lots of people want to hurt Russia more than they
> >> want to help their own country.
> >>
> >> Russia's non-aggressive response to Ukraine's unfair tariffs on its oil
> >> pipes was to build oil pipes around Ukraine. This recent invasion
> >> didn't even interrupt oil supply to Europe. But Europeans insist on
> >> doing so!
> >>
> >> Jimmy Carter, known for trashing our economy (but of course it was the
> >> other guy's fault), prevented us from selling wheat to Russia. Now
> >> Russia exports wheat.
> >>
> >> It's not working!
> >>
> >> Killing 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions is "worth it" according
> >> to Madeleine Albright...
> >>
> >> https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
> > Yes, you are right. You don't understand.
> Then explain.

Because Russian military bombs/kills/murders unarmed civilian like you and me. That's hardly non-aggressive.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 07:24:30 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
<edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:19:05 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
>> Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > John Doe wrote:
>> >> I don't understand why we are putting sanctions on Russia. THE
>> >> SANCTIONS ARE HURTING AMERICANS MORE THAN RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE
>> >> HURT AMERICANS. Seems lots of people want to hurt Russia more than they
>> >> want to help their own country.
>> >>
>> >> Russia's non-aggressive response to Ukraine's unfair tariffs on its oil
>> >> pipes was to build oil pipes around Ukraine. This recent invasion
>> >> didn't even interrupt oil supply to Europe. But Europeans insist on
>> >> doing so!
>> >>
>> >> Jimmy Carter, known for trashing our economy (but of course it was the
>> >> other guy's fault), prevented us from selling wheat to Russia. Now
>> >> Russia exports wheat.
>> >>
>> >> It's not working!
>> >>
>> >> Killing 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions is "worth it" according
>> >> to Madeleine Albright...
>> >>
>> >> https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
>> > Yes, you are right. You don't understand.
>> Then explain.
>
>Because Russian military bombs/kills/murders unarmed civilian like you and me. That's hardly non-aggressive.

The Russians didn't have any choice. Any country under threat has to
draw the line somewhere. It's unfortunate, but it was foreseeable and
preventable. The fault lies with us on this occasion.
Trump would never have let things get so far out of whack, but instead
you have a re-animated corpse just pouring gas on the fire and
needlessly upping the stakes for everyone. :(

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:25:47 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 07:24:30 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
> <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:19:05 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
> >> Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > John Doe wrote:
> >> >> I don't understand why we are putting sanctions on Russia. THE
> >> >> SANCTIONS ARE HURTING AMERICANS MORE THAN RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE
> >> >> HURT AMERICANS. Seems lots of people want to hurt Russia more than they
> >> >> want to help their own country.
> >> >>
> >> >> Russia's non-aggressive response to Ukraine's unfair tariffs on its oil
> >> >> pipes was to build oil pipes around Ukraine. This recent invasion
> >> >> didn't even interrupt oil supply to Europe. But Europeans insist on
> >> >> doing so!
> >> >>
> >> >> Jimmy Carter, known for trashing our economy (but of course it was the
> >> >> other guy's fault), prevented us from selling wheat to Russia. Now
> >> >> Russia exports wheat.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not working!
> >> >>
> >> >> Killing 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions is "worth it" according
> >> >> to Madeleine Albright...
> >> >>
> >> >> https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
> >> > Yes, you are right. You don't understand.
> >> Then explain.
> >
> >Because Russian military bombs/kills/murders unarmed civilian like you and me. That's hardly non-aggressive.
> The Russians didn't have any choice. Any country under threat has to
> draw the line somewhere.

Under what threat? Being driven out of another country?

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 10:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
<edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:25:47 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 07:24:30 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
>> <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:19:05 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
>> >> Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > John Doe wrote:
>> >> >> I don't understand why we are putting sanctions on Russia. THE
>> >> >> SANCTIONS ARE HURTING AMERICANS MORE THAN RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE
>> >> >> HURT AMERICANS. Seems lots of people want to hurt Russia more than they
>> >> >> want to help their own country.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Russia's non-aggressive response to Ukraine's unfair tariffs on its oil
>> >> >> pipes was to build oil pipes around Ukraine. This recent invasion
>> >> >> didn't even interrupt oil supply to Europe. But Europeans insist on
>> >> >> doing so!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jimmy Carter, known for trashing our economy (but of course it was the
>> >> >> other guy's fault), prevented us from selling wheat to Russia. Now
>> >> >> Russia exports wheat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's not working!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Killing 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions is "worth it" according
>> >> >> to Madeleine Albright...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
>> >> > Yes, you are right. You don't understand.
>> >> Then explain.
>> >
>> >Because Russian military bombs/kills/murders unarmed civilian like you and me. That's hardly non-aggressive.
>> The Russians didn't have any choice. Any country under threat has to
>> draw the line somewhere.
>
>Under what threat? Being driven out of another country?

Ukraine, a former Soviet puppet colony, is a democracy with an
increasingly european culture.

That is a threat to the Russian language, alphabet, culture, and
tradition of despotic mass-murdering dictators-for-life. Nostalgia for
Stalin. The Russian culture, or roughly half of it, still wants that.

Part of the price Russia will pay is brain drain. That will make the
rest of the population yet more tribal.

I wonder what China really wants to do here.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:54:46 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 10:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
> <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:25:47 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 07:24:30 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
> >> <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:19:05 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
> >> >> Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > John Doe wrote:
> >> >> >> I don't understand why we are putting sanctions on Russia. THE
> >> >> >> SANCTIONS ARE HURTING AMERICANS MORE THAN RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE
> >> >> >> HURT AMERICANS. Seems lots of people want to hurt Russia more than they
> >> >> >> want to help their own country.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Russia's non-aggressive response to Ukraine's unfair tariffs on its oil
> >> >> >> pipes was to build oil pipes around Ukraine. This recent invasion
> >> >> >> didn't even interrupt oil supply to Europe. But Europeans insist on
> >> >> >> doing so!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jimmy Carter, known for trashing our economy (but of course it was the
> >> >> >> other guy's fault), prevented us from selling wheat to Russia. Now
> >> >> >> Russia exports wheat.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's not working!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Killing 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions is "worth it" according
> >> >> >> to Madeleine Albright...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
> >> >> > Yes, you are right. You don't understand.
> >> >> Then explain.
> >> >
> >> >Because Russian military bombs/kills/murders unarmed civilian like you and me. That's hardly non-aggressive.
> >> The Russians didn't have any choice. Any country under threat has to
> >> draw the line somewhere.
> >
> >Under what threat? Being driven out of another country?
> Ukraine, a former Soviet puppet colony, is a democracy with an
> increasingly european culture.
>
> That is a threat to the Russian language, alphabet, culture, and
> tradition of despotic mass-murdering dictators-for-life. Nostalgia for
> Stalin. The Russian culture, or roughly half of it, still wants that.

Yes, they can want and enforce that within their border. Even in the dispute eastern corner of Ukraine, if they stick to the international laws on engagement, perhaps the west would not go so far.

> Part of the price Russia will pay is brain drain. That will make the
> rest of the population yet more tribal.
>
> I wonder what China really wants to do here.

They have to be careful, because Ukraine is a critical path of their Belt and Road. If China is too friendly to Russia, belt might be cut and road might be blocked.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 11:05:59 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
<edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:54:46 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 10:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
>> <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:25:47 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 07:24:30 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
>> >> <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:19:05 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
>> >> >> Rickster <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > John Doe wrote:
>> >> >> >> I don't understand why we are putting sanctions on Russia. THE
>> >> >> >> SANCTIONS ARE HURTING AMERICANS MORE THAN RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE
>> >> >> >> HURT AMERICANS. Seems lots of people want to hurt Russia more than they
>> >> >> >> want to help their own country.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Russia's non-aggressive response to Ukraine's unfair tariffs on its oil
>> >> >> >> pipes was to build oil pipes around Ukraine. This recent invasion
>> >> >> >> didn't even interrupt oil supply to Europe. But Europeans insist on
>> >> >> >> doing so!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Jimmy Carter, known for trashing our economy (but of course it was the
>> >> >> >> other guy's fault), prevented us from selling wheat to Russia. Now
>> >> >> >> Russia exports wheat.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's not working!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Killing 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions is "worth it" according
>> >> >> >> to Madeleine Albright...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
>> >> >> > Yes, you are right. You don't understand.
>> >> >> Then explain.
>> >> >
>> >> >Because Russian military bombs/kills/murders unarmed civilian like you and me. That's hardly non-aggressive.
>> >> The Russians didn't have any choice. Any country under threat has to
>> >> draw the line somewhere.
>> >
>> >Under what threat? Being driven out of another country?
>> Ukraine, a former Soviet puppet colony, is a democracy with an
>> increasingly european culture.
>>
>> That is a threat to the Russian language, alphabet, culture, and
>> tradition of despotic mass-murdering dictators-for-life. Nostalgia for
>> Stalin. The Russian culture, or roughly half of it, still wants that.
>
>Yes, they can want and enforce that within their border. Even in the dispute eastern corner of Ukraine, if they stick to the international laws on engagement, perhaps the west would not go so far.
>
>> Part of the price Russia will pay is brain drain. That will make the
>> rest of the population yet more tribal.
>>
>> I wonder what China really wants to do here.
>
>They have to be careful, because Ukraine is a critical path of their Belt and Road. If China is too friendly to Russia, belt might be cut and road might be blocked.

I'm not a fan of the New York Times. I canceled my subscription, so my
wife signed up for hers. So here it is.

But today's section 1 is really good. It's mostly about Putin and is
detailed and, for the NYT, shockingly balanced. Worth getting.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 1:26:34 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
> That's what Henry Kissinger and other diplomats have said.
>
> I have seen no one point to respected diplomats who have NOT cautioned
> against NATO expansion to Russia's border countries.
>
> Russia/China wouldn't be allowed to expand into Mexico or Canada!
> Free country or whatever the rhetoric might be.

Yes, US would probably invade Mexico. But US military is not allowed to bomb apt/school/hospital and kill unarmed civilian.

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 1:50:53 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
> Ed Lee wrote:
>
> > John Doe wrote:
>
> >> That's what Henry Kissinger and other diplomats have said.
> >>
> >> I have seen no one point to respected diplomats who have NOT cautioned
> >> against NATO expansion to Russia's border countries.
> >>
> >> Russia/China wouldn't be allowed to expand into Mexico or Canada! Free
> >> country or whatever the rhetoric might be.
> >
> > Yes, US would probably invade Mexico. But US military is not allowed to
> > bomb apt/school/hospital and kill unarmed civilian.
> Most civilians have arms.

Including civilians lining up to buy breads. What are they going to do? Kill Russians with breads?

In article <e710a2c0-f7fe-45ac-acc7-7b79dec81d6bn@googlegroups.com>,
edward.ming.lee@gmail.com says...
>
> Yes, US would probably invade Mexico. But US military is not allowed to bomb apt/school/hospital and kill unarmed civilian.
>
>

This must be after ww2 where the US bombed two cities with nukies and
fire bombed another city that I believe killed more civilians than the
nukes did in Japan.

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 1:15:50 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:

> Russia is taking back a small portion of the territory it gave up in the
> 1990s, in response to NATO expansion.

What 'it gave up' is a gift that, unlike a boomerang, does not return.
'response to' claims are rife, but attacking Ukraine has no clear
connection to NATO expansion, except to fuel new NATO expansion.

As for 'small portion', the British have a saying: once you pay the danegeld,
you're never rid of the Dane. Homes, cities, provinces... who is to say what is 'small'?

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 20:26:28 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
<always.look@message.header> wrote:

>That's what Henry Kissinger and other diplomats have said.
>
>I have seen no one point to respected diplomats who have NOT cautioned
>against NATO expansion to Russia's border countries.
>
>Russia/China wouldn't be allowed to expand into Mexico or Canada!
>Free country or whatever the rhetoric might be.
>
>You have to wonder why some people just don't get the obvious logic.

Well, absolutely. I guess some things that are obvious to some are
completely lost on others. :(

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 13:42:59 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
<edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 1:26:34 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
>> That's what Henry Kissinger and other diplomats have said.
>>
>> I have seen no one point to respected diplomats who have NOT cautioned
>> against NATO expansion to Russia's border countries.
>>
>> Russia/China wouldn't be allowed to expand into Mexico or Canada!
>> Free country or whatever the rhetoric might be.
>
>Yes, US would probably invade Mexico. But US military is not allowed to bomb apt/school/hospital and kill unarmed civilian.

I think you meant to say "people like Julian Assange are not allowed
to expose the US military's bombing of schools/apts/hospitals and
killing of unarmed civilians."

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 16:59:35 -0400, Ralph Mowery
<rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <e710a2c0-f7fe-45ac-acc7-7b79dec81d6bn@googlegroups.com>,
>edward.ming.lee@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Yes, US would probably invade Mexico. But US military is not allowed to bomb apt/school/hospital and kill unarmed civilian.
>>
>>
>
>This must be after ww2 where the US bombed two cities with nukies and
>fire bombed another city that I believe killed more civilians than the
>nukes did in Japan.

And let's not forget what happened in Viet Nam. :(

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 16:59:35 -0400, Ralph Mowery
<rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <e710a2c0-f7fe-45ac-acc7-7b79dec81d6bn@googlegroups.com>,
>edward.ming.lee@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Yes, US would probably invade Mexico. But US military is not allowed to bomb apt/school/hospital and kill unarmed civilian.
>>
>>
>
>This must be after ww2 where the US bombed two cities with nukies and
>fire bombed another city that I believe killed more civilians than the
>nukes did in Japan.

It was total war and the Japanese were on a deliberate national
suicide mission. The nukes shocked them into surrendering and likely
saved millions of lives.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

Am 27.03.22 um 22:42 schrieb Ed Lee:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 1:26:34 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
>> That's what Henry Kissinger and other diplomats have said.
>>
>> I have seen no one point to respected diplomats who have NOT cautioned
>> against NATO expansion to Russia's border countries.
>>
>> Russia/China wouldn't be allowed to expand into Mexico or Canada!
>> Free country or whatever the rhetoric might be.
>
> Yes, US would probably invade Mexico. But US military is not allowed to bomb apt/school/hospital and kill unarmed civilian.

My Lai.

Ralph Mowery wrote:
===================
>
> >
> > Yes, US would probably invade Mexico. But US military is not allowed to bomb apt/school/hospital and kill unarmed civilian.
> >
> >
> This must be after ww2 where the US bombed two cities with nukies and
> fire bombed another city that I believe killed more civilians than the
> nukes did in Japan.

** That would be Tokyo.
Firebombed by 300 or so B29s flying at low level .
Nips didn't bat an eye lid over it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

About 50% of the population were involved in the war effort.
So a legit target.
Same goes for German cities.

Nothing quite like it has existed since.

....... Phil

Am 28.03.22 um 00:44 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 16:59:35 -0400, Ralph Mowery
> <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <e710a2c0-f7fe-45ac-acc7-7b79dec81d6bn@googlegroups.com>,
>> edward.ming.lee@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> Yes, US would probably invade Mexico. But US military is not allowed to bomb apt/school/hospital and kill unarmed civilian.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This must be after ww2 where the US bombed two cities with nukies and
>> fire bombed another city that I believe killed more civilians than the
>> nukes did in Japan.
>
> It was total war and the Japanese were on a deliberate national
> suicide mission. The nukes shocked them into surrendering and likely
> saved millions of lives.

What a shit. There were razed out civilian towns in Japan
by the dozens, just by conventional means, aka Dresden style.
(Dresden as witnessed by the mother of my ex, not that
I like her too much).

H and N were just another 2 towns. Just more efficient.
And the only question to be solved was just if the Tenno
would be a war criminal or remain god.

The Japanese had the irrational hope that Stalin might act
as a mediator. They gave up within hours when Stalin took
some of their islands instead, STILL discussed by diplomates
in Moscow as of last week.

Where should the millions of lives be saved that you talk about?
Brave American bomber pilots? Impending Japanese invasion in SF?
Or even more Japanese civilians? Yes, extraordinary crimes
require extraordinary justification attempts.

Or was it more to impress Stalin, who was no longer a friend
in the European theatre?

Gerhard

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 03:18:12 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:

>Am 28.03.22 um 00:44 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 16:59:35 -0400, Ralph Mowery
>> <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <e710a2c0-f7fe-45ac-acc7-7b79dec81d6bn@googlegroups.com>,
>>> edward.ming.lee@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, US would probably invade Mexico. But US military is not allowed to bomb apt/school/hospital and kill unarmed civilian.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This must be after ww2 where the US bombed two cities with nukies and
>>> fire bombed another city that I believe killed more civilians than the
>>> nukes did in Japan.
>>
>> It was total war and the Japanese were on a deliberate national
>> suicide mission. The nukes shocked them into surrendering and likely
>> saved millions of lives.
>
>What a shit. There were razed out civilian towns in Japan
>by the dozens, just by conventional means, aka Dresden style.
>(Dresden as witnessed by the mother of my ex, not that
>I like her too much).
>
>H and N were just another 2 towns. Just more efficient.
>And the only question to be solved was just if the Tenno
>would be a war criminal or remain god.
>
>The Japanese had the irrational hope that Stalin might act
>as a mediator. They gave up within hours when Stalin took
>some of their islands instead, STILL discussed by diplomates
>in Moscow as of last week.
>
>Where should the millions of lives be saved that you talk about?

Further deaths in battle, in the streets of Japan. And starvation of
the Japanese population.

Japan was on a suicide mission. Die for the Emperor.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
======================

** Have you studied any WW2 history at all ???

Cos your pig ignorance is fucking staggering.

...... Phil

Am 28.03.22 um 03:40 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:

>> Where should the millions of lives be saved that you talk about?
>
> Further deaths in battle, in the streets of Japan. And starvation of
> the Japanese population.

Nuke them. Otherwise they might starve to death.

Gerhard

Gerhard Hoffmann Child wrote:
=========================
>
> >> Where should the millions of lives be saved that you talk about?
> >
> > Further deaths in battle, in the streets of Japan. And starvation of
> > the Japanese population.
>
> Nuke them. Otherwise they might starve to death.
>

** Ok, so you have done no reading at all.

You could start with Wiki and follow the links.
Till you have - SHUT the FUCK UP !!

....... Phil

I found something (two facts) that helped put the nuclear bombings in
perspective. It was believed by the US that and invasion of the home
lands would take 12 months at least to defeat Japan if it was even possible.

Unrelated in 1945 the Japanese were killing about 10 thousand civilians
PER MONTH in the territories they occupied.

So 3 months to prepare for an invasion, 12 months of fighting would be
about 150,000 civilian casualties in the Japanese occupied territories.
That's a lot of reasons to accept the bomb drops as a necessary evil
(plus add Japanese and US losses during an invasion)

On 28/03/2022 6:38 am, John Doe wrote:
> Speaking of less advanced civilizations, I have been getting a good look
> at Ukraine.
>
> Busy intersections without streetlights or stop signs... And it snows
> there!
>
> I'm pretty sure Ukraine is full of natural resources, but Russia looks
> more advanced, so where is the money going...
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
>
>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>>> That will make the rest of the population yet more tribal.
>>
>> They are tougher than Westerners, they might be less sophisticated, but
>> our population is getting really weird.

Ukraine was a sovereign country with hundreds of years of history. It
was invaded in 1917 by the Soviets. So not actually "always a part of
Russia" like Putler would claim. And I think Ukraine more than paid for
it's freedom when The Soviets stole their grain in the 1930's and
starved 20 million Ukrainians to death.

That also so the even handedness and respect the Soviets showed and show
to Ukraine.

David Eather wrote:
================
>
> I found something (two facts) that helped put the nuclear bombings in
> perspective. It was believed by the US that and invasion of the home
> lands would take 12 months at least to defeat Japan if it was even possible.
>
> Unrelated in 1945 the Japanese were killing about 10 thousand civilians
> PER MONTH in the territories they occupied.
>
> So 3 months to prepare for an invasion, 12 months of fighting would be
> about 150,000 civilian casualties in the Japanese occupied territories.
>
> That's a lot of reasons to accept the bomb drops as a necessary evil
> (plus add Japanese and US losses during an invasion)
>

** Another factor US leaders had to consider was potential consequences of NOT using their nukes.

US parents would naturally ask why, after spending *massive funds* on developing the things,
they were not used to end the war quickly so saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of their young
son's lives.

Japanese had consistently shown ZERO respect for any and all human life throughout the war THEY started.
Check out the: " Rape of Nanking " for some disturbing bedtime reading.

The events around that time are so horrific & shameful that Japan has pretty much eradicated them from history books.
Heaps of young and many Japanese adults have no clue about the CRIMINAL role their country played in WW2.

Huge credit goes to the US for treating Japanese citizens with full respect soon as fighting ceased.
Japan was rebuilt, fast as possible, with local officials kept in place as before hostilities began.
The only land taken over permanently was that needed to bury US dead.

...... Phil