Hello Bob,   
      
   >LL>or ethnicity.  Why did the Japanese choose to help the Jews when so   
   >LL>many others (including Americans) chose otherwise?  Maybe, just maybe   
   >LL>it had something to do with religion?  Or at the very least a sense   
   >LL>of human decency.   
      
   >WD>I think you need to start reading "The Rape of Nanking" by Iris   
   >WD>Chang and learn about the attrocities committed by the Japanese when   
   >WD>entering the Chinese city of Nanking and slaughtering 300,000   
   >WD>civilians in that town alone.   
      
   BK>In my critique of Lee's sentence above, I missed that point completely.   
      
   Iris Chang's version of events was propaganda.  Pure propaganda.   
   But then, winners always write the histories of events.  Never the   
   other side.   
      
   Yes, Bob, the South was right.  But Southern historians have never   
   been allowed to have their say.  Or rather, nothing they had to say   
   was ever taken seriously by those outside the South.   
      
   The same thing with Japanese version of events.  Nobody outside of   
   Japan wants to hear the Japanese side.  Ditto with the German version   
   of events.  Nobody outside of Germany wants to hear the German POV.   
      
   >LL>Just because a handful of Japanese military men got carried   
   >LL>away does not mean that an entire people was at fault.  And   
   >LL>lets not forget what we did to innocent Japanese citizens,   
   >LL>nuking TWO of their cities - just because we could.  Makes   
   >LL>me real proud to be an American ... NOT!   
      
   >WD>Another interesting fact is that several of Japan's WW2 war   
   >WD>criminals who were convicted at the eastern version of the Nurnberg   
   >WD>war trials and executed, are still being revered as heroes in a   
   >WD>shrine.   
      
   BK>Plus the prediction of an invasion death toll estimated at a million.   
      
   The Japanese high command had offered to surrender a full month BEFORE   
   the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The   
   Japanese high command, along with their beloved Emperor, knew the war   
   was lost.  Japan's navy was decimated.  Japan's armed forces had been   
   defeated everywhere.  Japanese cities (including Tokyo) were in ruins.   
   It was a lost cause, and everybody knew it.   
      
   However, US President Harry Truman refused to allow the Japanese to   
   surrender.  Why?  Because President Truman wanted to teach the Soviets   
   a lesson.  And what lesson was that?  Try to invade Japan (or any other   
   country) and we will drop the same kind of bombs on you as we did on   
   Hiroshima and Nagasaki.   
      
   After Hiroshima and Nagasaki (along with its residents) had been   
   reduced to an ash heap, at least President Truman rejected Curtis   
   LeMay's recommendation to atomize cities in the USSR.  Of course,   
   had them Soviets been gooks President Truman's decision might have   
   been different ...   
      
   >LL>Of course those Japanese "war criminals" were convicted in   
   >LL>our kangaroo courts and executed.  What else would you have   
   >LL>expected?   
      
   BK>That they were guilty? I suspect the victims thought so.   
      
   We condemned the former Soviet Union for having conducted show trials   
   and yet we conducted our own version.  It was a foregone conclusion   
   those who were put on trial were guilty.  All we had to do was go   
   through the motions to make it official.  And so we did.  Everybody   
   approved, except the Japanese.  On the other side of the world,   
   where a separate version of show trials were held, everybody approved,   
   except the Germans.   
      
   And that is what we called "justice".   
      
   >LL>Saddam Hussein mocked his Shiite executioners by asking   
   >LL>them just before they hanged him, "Is this manly?"  What a   
   >LL>brave man he was, hitting the nail on the head with that   
   >LL>comment.   
      
   BK>Or was he just nutso?   
      
   Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not think Saddam Hussein   
   was nutso.  In fact, Rumsfeld travelled to Baghdad and shook Saddam   
   Hussein's hand.  In public and on camera.  Both men were smiling   
   as they shook hands, such best friends they were.  But that was   
   a time long ago, when Ronald Reagan was King of the USA.  It was   
   important to Ronnie Rayguns to sell (or trade) arms to our enemies.   
   After all, Arabs have an old saying - "The enemy of my enemy is my   
   friend."  Such were the days of Iran/Contra ...   
      
   >>> Continued to next message   
      
    * SLMR 2.1a * BE A SAINT +   
      
   --- Maximus 3.01   
    * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.mooo.com (3:800/432)