The governmant is so insidious. They tax EVERTHING

hiroshima facts wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander > wrote in message ink.net>...
>
>>And all three are prime examples of terrorist attacks considering
>>our standing orders at the time to not target civilians. At least
>>that's what we told the soldiers.
>
> In Dresden, American bombers aimed for the railyards. It was the UK
> bombers that aimed for the city, and the UK bombers that started the
> firestorm.

Where to you get this crap? We knew exactly what the U.K.
bombers were doing and carrying. It's like claiming that
the person driving the getaway car isn't an accessory to
the crime and just as guilty.

> In Hiroshima, the bomb exploded nearly directly above Hiroshima
> Castle, which was the headquarters of the Japanese Second General
> Army, which was in charge of all military operations on Kyushu,
> Shikoku and western Honshu. (The bomb killed 20,000 Japanese soldiers
> as well.)

That's easy. Just pick a nearby "military" target and claim it
makes the WHOLE DAMN CITY a valid target.

> The Nagasaki bomb was meant for Kokura Arsenal, a massive (4100' x
> 2000') complex that was producing armaments for Japan to defend
> against invasion. Weather diverted the bomb however, and it was
> dropped on the outskirts of Nagasaki between the "Mitsubishi Steel and
> Arms Works" and the "Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works/Torpedo Works",
> damaging both beyond repair.

Damaging both - OMG. Have to actually seen the pictures? Really.
Go look at the smoking pile of rubble that the entire CITY was.
Damaging isn't the right word. Let's see... um... vaporize is.

In article . net>, Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> Damaging both - OMG. Have to actually seen the pictures? Really.
> Go look at the smoking pile of rubble that the entire CITY was.
> Damaging isn't the right word. Let's see... um... vaporize is.


If the USA had to invade Japan to end the war, what do you think the
damage would have been? How many dead? Hundreds of thousands would have
turned into millions. Have you ever bothered to learn about the weapons
of desperation japan had to fend off an invasion? Do know about the
dirty bomb that had been planed for use on SF ? uranium from germany
packed into a bomb loaded on plan in a submarine aircraft carrier.
The US captured one Nazi U-boat with such material.

As bad as atomic bombs are, the other choice was worse. If you have
convincing evidence otherwise please present it.

In article >, The Lindbergh Baby wrote:

> Change the input (taxes), got to change the output (services).

How many of these "services" do we really need?
How many of these "services" are we not getting our money's worth on?
How many of these "services" do we get nothing for?

Joseph Oberlander > wrote in message link.net>...
> hiroshima facts wrote:
>
> > Joseph Oberlander > wrote in message ink.net>...
> >
> >>And all three are prime examples of terrorist attacks considering
> >>our standing orders at the time to not target civilians. At least
> >>that's what we told the soldiers.
> >
> > In Dresden, American bombers aimed for the railyards. It was the UK
> > bombers that aimed for the city, and the UK bombers that started the
> > firestorm.
>
> Where to you get this crap?

Not crap to point out who bombed what.




> We knew exactly what the U.K. bombers were doing and carrying.

Indeed. We knew the UK bombers were deliberately trying to start a
firestorm in Dresden. Unlike our bombers, which were targeting the
railyards.




> > The Nagasaki bomb was meant for Kokura Arsenal, a massive (4100' x
> > 2000') complex that was producing armaments for Japan to defend
> > against invasion. Weather diverted the bomb however, and it was
> > dropped on the outskirts of Nagasaki between the "Mitsubishi Steel and
> > Arms Works" and the "Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works/Torpedo Works",
> > damaging both beyond repair.
>
> Damaging both - OMG. Have to actually seen the pictures?

Yes. Both complexes were damaged beyond repair.




> Really. Go look at the smoking pile of rubble that the entire CITY
> was. Damaging isn't the right word. Let's see... um... vaporize is.

The entire city was not "vaporized". The bomb only exploded on the
outskirts of the city.

(Brent P) wrote in message news:<Yy34c.9819$mM.76542@attbi_s02>...
>
>
> If the USA had to invade Japan to end the war, what do you think the
> damage would have been? How many dead? Hundreds of thousands would have
> turned into millions. Have you ever bothered to learn about the weapons
> of desperation japan had to fend off an invasion?


One thing about Japanese defense planning is, we were reading all
their mail.

At the time of Japan's surrender, the US government was on the verge
of shifting to invading Japan from the lightly-defended north, where
we could build up forces before engaging in major combat.

The war ended before there was any serious discussion of invasion
points, but my guess is they would have gone in at Sendai.


As for costs, the invasion and fight, combined with the pre-invasion
destruction of transportation leading to famine and starvation, would
have annihilated the Japanese population. Also, their soldiers would
have killed several million more on the mainland.

Brent P wrote:

> In article . net>, Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
>>Damaging both - OMG. Have to actually seen the pictures? Really.
>>Go look at the smoking pile of rubble that the entire CITY was.
>>Damaging isn't the right word. Let's see... um... vaporize is.
>
>
>
> If the USA had to invade Japan to end the war, what do you think the
> damage would have been?

Old propaganda. They wanted an honorable way out of the whole
thing and we could have just blockaded them and bombed their
factories.

In article .net>, Joseph Oberlander wrote:

>>>Damaging both - OMG. Have to actually seen the pictures? Really.
>>>Go look at the smoking pile of rubble that the entire CITY was.
>>>Damaging isn't the right word. Let's see... um... vaporize is.

>> If the USA had to invade Japan to end the war, what do you think the
>> damage would have been?

> Old propaganda. They wanted an honorable way out of the whole
> thing and we could have just blockaded them and bombed their
> factories.

So you would have starved millions to death instead.

Apparently you did not understand what you just read or
you don't understand the difference between cutting tax
RATES for taxpayers and cutting tax income to the treasury.
A cut in tax RATES always has increased the flow of money
to the treasury it does not reduce the flow.



mike hunt



The Lindbergh Baby wrote:
>
> wrote:
> > Tax cuts are not an attempt to 'give' you anything. When the
> > government cuts the tax rates, as it has under Kennedy, Reagan
> > and Bush they are merely taking less of your money not giving you
> > money it's your money. Contrary to what many would have you
> > believe, historically tax RATE cuts always produce more money for
> > the US treasury over time. In a capitalistic society every time
> > money changes hands it is taxed. The more in circulation, the
> > more it changes hands, the more tax money generated. Many
> > politician want you to think otherwise so they can can continue
> > to take your money to GIVE you some back to buy your votes.
> > Don't be so naive', wise up.
>
> You're naive. If it's taxed more by changing hands, then it's not a
> "tax cut."
>
> And if you say they're not "giving" us money back because it's ours to
> begin with, then we have to "give" them services and benefits back.
> Only we won't do that, so instead the burden will just be passed on in
> the form of city, state and county taxes, fees, tolls, sales taxes, and
> various "special revenue enhancements." People want their life styles
> to stay where they are even as they get checks from Uncle Sam. One
> class of econ 101 will explain why that's impossible. But I doubt
> anyone here ever went to college.
>
> Change the input (taxes), got to change the output (services).
>
> But most people are so uneducated they don't understand something that
> little Timmy, who's run a lemonade stand, probably intuitively grasps.
>
> John
>
> --
> To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address
>
> Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

Brent P wrote:

> In article .net>, Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
>>>>Damaging both - OMG. Have to actually seen the pictures? Really.
>>>>Go look at the smoking pile of rubble that the entire CITY was.
>>>>Damaging isn't the right word. Let's see... um... vaporize is.
>
>
>>>If the USA had to invade Japan to end the war, what do you think the
>>>damage would have been?
>
>
>
>>Old propaganda. They wanted an honorable way out of the whole
>>thing and we could have just blockaded them and bombed their
>>factories.
>
>
> So you would have starved millions to death instead.

They would have revolted first. Many had no more love for their
government anymore. But - yes - it would have been THEIR own
fault and doing.

In article k.net>, Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> They would have revolted first. Many had no more love for their
> government anymore. But - yes - it would have been THEIR own
> fault and doing.

There was a attempted take over by the military to fight on after the
emperor had decided to surrender.