Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!

[Len Budney]

No, it's really just mushy-headed, left-wing popular mythology.

That would disappoint me to learn, because I still have an ingrained dislike for leftists. But it's not; it's simple fact. The enemy du jour is portrayed as evil incarnate, as long as it serves the government's propagandistic needs. Then they're rehabilitated, and the next enemy takes their place.

In WWII it's perhaps more dramatic than any other war: Stalin was worse than Hitler, at least in terms of raw body counts. We excused unspeakable atrocities by the Soviets even while we (rightly) condemned Nazi atrocities. The same WWII vets who (understandably) hate the Japanese don't hate the even worse Soviets.

Nor were a majority of Germans either evil or Nazis. As Goebbels himself admitted, the majority of Germans didn't want war; they were dragged into it by leaders who convinced them that they were under attack and facing a dire national peril. The same way, incidentally, the American people were convinced to back the war: they didn't want war either. They elected Roosevelt in 1940 because "he kept us out of the war." Roosevelt then did everything in his power to drag us into the war. The majority of Americans and Germans weren't evil; they were simply hoodwinked by their leaders. (I considered using "schmucks" as a synonym for "hoodwinked by their leaders," but suspect that such a characterization of "the greatest generation" would cause a nuclear explosion.)

--Len.

[Werewolf]

The enemy du jour is portrayed as evil incarnate...

Statement of the obvious. What's your point?

...as long as it serves the government's propagandistic needs.

OK - again - pretty obvious. How else is a government supposed to get it's population behind a war - tell it how nice the enemy is? How they're such wonderful people and we only wanna kill 'em because our Army needs the practice and they just happen to be the most convenient folks at the time to practice on? That's nothing new. Why do you think Lincoln made slavery an issue in the Civil War? Not because he had anything against it but because he knew it was an issue that the masses could wrap their hearts around and get all up in arms over. He certainly didn't want them wrapping their minds around anything - they might just figure out that the southern states really did have the right to secede and where would that have gotten him?

Governments start wars. People fight them. Unfortunately for govenments most people aren't going to go off and risk life and limb on a lark - they need a good reason. More often than not the reason the government has doesn't jive with what most would consider something worth dying for. So what's a government to do? It lies. Too bad for the people because them's the facts, that's reality. Been that way since Chief Stone Breaker decided he wanted Chief Bear Killer's wife 100,000 years ago but knew his warriors were'nt gonna go out and risk death just so the chief could get a little strange.

The US government's methods aren't any different from those of Chief Sone Breaker other than what it does impacts more people.

Don't like the Iraq war - TOUGH!

Deal with it or change it.

HINT! You'll have a better chance of dealing with it than changing it.

In WWII it's perhaps more dramatic than any other war: Stalin was worse than Hitler... more obvious stuff cut for brevities sake

Again - what's your point? That the US government is exactly the same in the methods it chooses to control the masses as every other? Nothing new there.

[Len Budney]

Werewolf, I commend your honesty! It's unusual: the folks spreading the propaganda usually also "believe" it, at least in the sense of Orwellian goodthink.

The enemy du jour is portrayed as evil incarnate...

Statement of the obvious. What's your point?

...as long as it serves the government's propagandistic needs.

OK - again - pretty obvious. How else is a government supposed to get it's population behind a war... Governments start wars. People fight them... Don't like the Iraq war - TOUGH!

...Stalin was worse than Hitler...

Again - what's your point? That the US government is exactly the same in the methods it chooses to control the masses as every other? Nothing new there.

You call it obvious, and I agree. What's interesting is that some would deny it, including right in this here thread. See, the "islamo-fascists" really are evil incarnate! And the Saudis (where Wahhabism, and most of the 9/11 hijackers, come from) are our good friends and allies--they're not "islamo-fascist" at all. Etc., etc.

But the important thing is that this obvious phenomenon is utterly immoral. The people who fall for it are schmucks. You're right that the ones who don't fall for it will have an uphill battle doing anything about it, because the schmucks are just too numerous and well-placed. You clearly don't fall for it--whether or not you actually agree with the war itself, which I don't know. But when you portray yourself as a hard-nosed realist and exhort me to "deal with it," you're supporting the immorality with your compliance. Pick any other grave injustice you like and picture yourself exhorting people to "deal with it," and you'll see what I mean. (There, I didn't even mention rape. But that's as good an injustice as any other, if you can't think of any to picture yourself "dealing with.")

--Len.

[Werewolf]

But when you portray yourself as a hard-nosed realist and exhort me to "deal with it," you're supporting the immorality with your compliance. Pick any other grave injustice you like and picture yourself exhorting people to "deal with it," and you'll see what I mean. (There, I didn't even mention rape. But that's as good an injustice as any other, if you can't think of any to picture yourself "dealing with.")

--Len.

I'm not sure whether the propaganda used by governments to gain the compliance of it's citizens is immoral or not. In some cases it undoubtedly is but in others maybe not.

Governments very often have access to information that its citizens do not (whether or not that should be is another discussion). Governments therefore have the capacity to make informed decisions that the people will not understand. Thus the citizens need to be coaxed. We both know what form the coaxing takes.

If a government's decision is correct and moral is it then immoral to propagandize it's people to get 'em to go along?

In a perfect world with a perfectly literate and educated population capable of critical thinking and making decisions based on fact and logic instead of emotion then propagandizing a populace could reasonably be argued to be immoral. Personnaly I would agree that it would be immoral.

BUT we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world of illiteracy, a world where a lot, if not most people tend to think with their hearts instead of their minds. We live in a world where half the people have IQ's of less than 100 and thinking critically is difficult if not impossible for them (and a whole lot of the other half just find it easier to think with their hearts than their minds). They must be coaxed to do that which they otherwise might not choose to do even though they should. In other words the government must tug at their heart strings and not their minds and what generates action out of a heart is very different from what will galvanize a mind.

Sometimes it is both necessary and moral for a government to propagandize its people.

RE Injustice and Compliance:

There's a prayer I first saw posted on the wall of the armory of my Army basic training unit. I'm sure you're familiar with it and whether or not one believes in GOD its sentiment is still appropriate.

God grant me:
The courage to change the things I can.
The serenity to accept those things I cannot.
AND the WISDOM to know the difference.

Tying one's self up in trying to change things one cannot change is at best a futile waste of time and energy and at worst a risk to one's health and sanity.

It behooves all of us to seek the wisdom to know the difference.

RE my opinion Iraq War:

Is the Iraq war just? I think it started out that way. I believe that Bush and his gang truly believed that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction and it was necessary to eliminate them to keep the USA safe. That might make me one of the schmucks I suppose.

When it was discovered that he didn't (have WMD's that is) and the administration started waffling on the reasons we were there was when I started doubting that the war was just. AND that was the time to get out. But it's too late now  to just up and leave. The power vacuum that would be created and the potential ramifications of that are just too dire for both the USA and the Iraqi people. We've got to finish what we started. It is irrelevant now whether the war was started for good cause or not. We've got to finish it.

Mistakes happen. When they do you learn from them, clean up the mess and move on. Right now the USA is in the clean up stage. For what it's worth, I doubt if it will learn anything and it will be some time before we can move on.

[Len Budney]

I'm not sure whether the propaganda used by governments to gain the compliance of it's citizens is immoral or not. In some cases it undoubtedly is but in others maybe not.

Sometimes it's that virtuous moral sort of lying. Right. 

If a government's decision is correct and moral is it then immoral to propagandize it's people to get 'em to go along?

Since governments can be counted on to make incorrect, immoral decisions, the question is rather moot. But supposing so for the sake of argument, the answer is no. The ends do not justify the means.

God grant me:
The courage to change the things I can.
The serenity to accept those things I cannot.
AND the WISDOM to know the difference.

There's a difference between serenely dealing with evil, and declaring that it isn't evil in the first place. That's important. I'm quite serene as I point out the evils of propaganda, despite what Maned may claim to the contrary. Like cancer, there's no cure in sight. But imagine how foolish it would be for people to decide that, since cancer is incurable, therefore cancer is not a disease.

Is the Iraq war just? I think it started out that way. I believe that Bush and his gang truly believed that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction and it was necessary to eliminate them to keep the USA safe. That might make me one of the schmucks I suppose.

I believed the propaganda as well. It was the realization that I was a schmuck that snapped me out of my blind conservatism and awakened the inner libertarian.

When it was discovered that he didn't (have WMD's that is) and the administration started waffling on the reasons we were there was when I started doubting that the war was just.

Same here.

AND that was the time to get out. But it's too late now  to just up and leave. The power vacuum that would be created and the potential ramifications of that are just too dire...

The aftermath will be ugly. The question is whether there's any better alternative. I think the argument can be made that staying is much worse than leaving. If we never withdraw, that would be a moral obscenity akin to our continued occupation of Korea, Germany and Okinawa. If we do withdraw, whenever that is, the aftermath will be as bad as if we withdrew today--so on net it will be worse by the amount of carnage between now and then. In addition, the longer we stay, the more blowback we store up for the future. Which of course means more attacks in some form or other, followed by more disastrous wars, etc.

We've got to finish what we started.

I said that too, for a long time after realizing that the WMDs were never going to be found. The above considerations, not to mention the multi-trillion-dollar price tag, changed my mind.

Mistakes happen. When they do you learn from them, clean up the mess and move on.

The assumption that we can clean up our mistakes is dangerous hubris. You can't unkill the dead, and you can't put humpty-dumpty together again.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Methinks Werewolf is on the money. Propagandist methods by themselves may be the same, but the purposes and results are quite different. If we accept at least on the practical level that ends almost always justify means, then propaganda is just a tool. If from the very beginning one side chooses to eschew propaganda, that side will fight at a significant disadvantage.

By nature people are gregarious but controversial. They do not agree easily on anything, especially when they are not under immediate pressure to do so. Hence, Parkinson's law on committees. Well, a pure democracy is a giant committee that will never ever get anything done in a timely manner. That is why we have representative constitutional government, wherein the few decide in the name of and for the many, after a suitable electoral process. Part of this is the practical necessity for politicians to "rile up" support for what they deem is necessary.

The reality is that the public cannot hope to affect directly every single decision. Even in the age of the internet, that would be impossible because people would have to be voting in referenda all day long. Hence the expediency of representative government. The downside is that there is a partial loss of control, but that's the price to pay for a practical, effective government. Another issue is the quality of the leaders. That is why, if people are smart, they should vote for character and experience, rather than particular measures. Regrettably, people ignore the politician and focus on promises way too much, failing to appreciate the promises can and usually are broken, but the character and knowledge of the leader generally remain intact, and thus should be used as the true criterion.

[Len Budney]

Methinks Werewolf is on the money. Rapists' methods by themselves may be the same, but the purposes and results are quite different.

Nope, sorry, the ends never justify the means.

If we accept at least on the practical level that ends almost always justify means...

I guess I spoke to quickly. Yeah, if we make a "practical" decision to consider immoral things moral, lots of things suddenly become moral. 

--Len.

[Werewolf]

Nope, sorry, the ends never justify the means.

I imagine that there's quite a few million Japanese and American, wives, fathers, children and grandchildren that never would have been if the US had had to invade Japan, that would most assuredly disagree with you on that.

Guess why we didn't have to invade Japan?

But then I guess a million civilian casualties and a couple of hundred thousand military casualties is preferable to having dropped a nuke.

And of course since the ends never justify the means you must believe it is the duty and responsibility of a 110 pound women to fist fight with her rapist instead of shooting him.

Sorry man - but believing the ends do not justify the means in some cases is just so incredibly naive.

[Len Budney]

Nope, sorry, the ends never justify the means.

I imagine that there's quite a few million Japanese and American, wives, fathers, children and grandchildren that never would have been if the US had had to invade Japan, that would most assuredly disagree with you on that.

I take you up on your challenge: find me one Japanese person who is grateful for the nuclear bombings of Japan.

Guess why we didn't have to invade Japan?

By the way, the myth that Truman nuked Japan to save Japanese lives was started way after the fact. It's pure BS. Japan was desperate to surrender, and had tried several times before the bombings.

And of course since the ends never justify the means you must believe it is the duty and responsibility of a 110 pound women to fist fight with her rapist instead of shooting him.

Self-defense is always moral, so there's no need for a means-ends argument.

--Len.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

len meet that japanese guy  but i'm half irish too


the problem was the japanese weren't desperate enough   they weren't going for unconditional surrender till the big boom.

my take on it was the first bomb was to get em to surrender and the second was payback

[roo_ster]

Len:

You've left your moral lodestone too close to your moral compass & gotten it all out of whack.

For instance, propaganda, like any tool, is amoral.  It is a value-neutral means, just as a firearm is a value-neutral tool.  One would think that a supposed supporter of RKBA would understand such.

The important point is not the fact that propaganda, marketing, and advertising occurs; but that it is true/factual/correct or not.

The quotations I shared were, in fact, correct.  Mahmoud's quote was taken directly from his regime's website, for instance.  If there is any "dehumanizing" going on, it is the responsibility of the utterer of those words, not the folks who repeat them so as to inform fellow citizens.  You might want to consider that their words were not de-humanizing...in their culture.

Len, it is obvious that every individual does not share the same value system.  How great an intellectual leap is it to realize that cultures, too, have different values systems?

[Werewolf]

Self-defense is always moral, so there's no need for a means-ends argument.

--Len.

Hmmmm...

So - if the end is self defense...

then...

Any means used to achieve that end are justified?

Is that correct?

I'm just trying to make sure I understand exactly what it is you're saying.

[Len Budney]

Self-defense is always moral, so there's no need for a means-ends argument.

Hmmmm... So - if the end is self defense... then... Any means used to achieve that end are justified? Is that correct?

Obviously not. For example, if a Russian threatens my life, it would be immoral to release a virus that selectively kills all Russians on the planet. Less dramatically, if a man threatens my life, if would be immoral to destroy his entire apartment building, and everyone in it, with an ANFO bomb. This is a fairly elementary question you're asking. The end never justifies unjust means.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

For instance, propaganda, like any tool, is amoral.  It is a value-neutral means, just as a firearm is a value-neutral tool.  One would think that a supposed supporter of RKBA would understand such.

I'll give you that: "propaganda" doesn't inherently require dishonesty or lying. But the propaganda we've been discussing does, which is what makes it immoral.

The important point is not the fact that propaganda, marketing, and advertising occurs; but that it is true/factual/correct or not.

Agreed. But that defense doesn't apply in this case. To carry the defense, you'd need to argue that Muslims really are evil incarnate. Just the bad Muslims, of course. Which is hard to distinguish from all Muslims, since we accuse them all of "dancing in the streets" on 9/11, etc.

The quotations I shared were, in fact, correct.  Mahmoud's quote was taken directly from his regime's website, for instance.

The quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map," involves a controversial translation from the Persian. But assuming the translation is correct, saying such a thing doesn't justify invading and bombing his country, nor demonizing the entire Persian people with one man's hateful remarks. Saying stupid, or even hateful, things, isn't a death-penalty offense--luckily for millions of rednecks right in our own country.

Len, it is obvious that every individual does not share the same value system.  How great an intellectual leap is it to realize that cultures, too, have different values systems?

Sure. But you won't convince me to endorse the slaughter of innocents, nor to agree that ends justify means.

--Len.

[Werewolf]

The end never justifies unjust means.

Wait... Wait... I'm still confused.

In a previous post you claimed that "the end never justifies the means." Never is an absolute.

Yet you now  say that the ends never justify unjust means which implies very strongly that ends can justify means as long as the means are just?

Help me out here.
Which is it(?) the end never justifies the means or the end justifies the means as long as the means are just?

And as long as we're discussing what is just; who gets to decide whether or not means are just? Are there quantifiable and qualitative criteria for determining whether or not means are just? If so what are those criteria?

[Len Budney]

The end never justifies unjust means.

Which is it(?) the end never justifies the means or the end justifies the means as long as the means are just?

Um, why would you try to justify something that's already just? If it's just, then it needs no justification.

And as long as we're discussing what is just; who gets to decide whether or not means are just? Are there quantifiable and qualitative criteria for determining whether or not means are just? If so what are those criteria?

Yes, and the criterion is extremely simple. Any physical interaction with another's person or property, without their consent, is unjust. Everything else is permitted.

--Len.

[Werewolf]

Yes, and the criterion is extremely simple. Any physical interaction with another's person or property, without their consent, is unjust. Everything else is permitted.

And that's the generally accepted criterion? or your criterion?, Len? M'thinks it is your personal criterion. But I'll go ahead and run with it anyway...

For example: Based on your criteria the government is acting unjustly by taxing me. No means the government could ever choose to tax me would be just because I do not grant it consent to take my money. But they take it anyway. WOW! The ramifications of that are just fantastic.

But let's get back to who gets to decide what's just.

Lets start out with a little Reductio ad absurdum, shall we?

I think it is just to sacrifice one to save a million without the consent of the one.

You think it is acceptable to sacrifice the million if the 1 doesn't grant their consent.

I wonder who the million would want deciding what's just or not?

I also wonder how one can morally justify sacrificing the million to save the one - after all - based on your criteria "Any physical interaction with another's person or property, without their consent, is unjust.",  which leads us back to your contention that the ends never justify the means.

Remember - right now we're at the Reductio ad absurdum stage.

[roo_ster]

Len, I am struggling against the hunch that you are intentionally mis-stating the arguments of others.

For just one (recent) example, the bit I placed in bold face has nothing to do with either the general point of my posts (cultures are different and have different value systems) or the specific case of Iran's leaders and their culture (apocalyptic, no regard for human life).

I don't mind debating with differently-minded folks, but I insist on some level of honesty when addressing other folks' arguments.  I am quickly coming to the conclusion that you are not demonstrating that minimal level of honesty.

I am reminded of an incident where Karl Marx (who never set foot on a factory floor) upbraided a socialist union organizer/factory worker for his impertinence by demonstrating Marx's lack of touch with reality.  Marx ended his tirade with, "Your experience is nothing without my theory."  Such has been the rallying cry of navel-gazers ever since.

I think I am finished with you.  Enjoy your theory and be sure to send a postcard when your anarcho-capitalist utopia comes to fruition.

For instance, propaganda, like any tool, is amoral.  It is a value-neutral means, just as a firearm is a value-neutral tool.  One would think that a supposed supporter of RKBA would understand such.

I'll give you that: "propaganda" doesn't inherently require dishonesty or lying. But the propaganda we've been discussing does, which is what makes it immoral.

The important point is not the fact that propaganda, marketing, and advertising occurs; but that it is true/factual/correct or not.

Agreed. But that defense doesn't apply in this case. To carry the defense, you'd need to argue that Muslims really are evil incarnate. Just the bad Muslims, of course. Which is hard to distinguish from all Muslims, since we accuse them all of "dancing in the streets" on 9/11, etc.

The quotations I shared were, in fact, correct.  Mahmoud's quote was taken directly from his regime's website, for instance.

The quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map," involves a controversial translation from the Persian. But assuming the translation is correct, saying such a thing doesn't justify invading and bombing his country, nor demonizing the entire Persian people with one man's hateful remarks. Saying stupid, or even hateful, things, isn't a death-penalty offense--luckily for millions of rednecks right in our own country.

Len, it is obvious that every individual does not share the same value system.  How great an intellectual leap is it to realize that cultures, too, have different values systems?

Sure. But you won't convince me to endorse the slaughter of innocents, nor to agree that ends justify means.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

Yes, and the criterion is extremely simple. Any physical interaction with another's person or property, without their consent, is unjust. Everything else is permitted.

And that's the generally accepted criterion? or your criterion?, Len? M'thinks it is your personal criterion...

It's not Osama Bin Ladin's, if that's what you're asking.

Based on your criteria the government is acting unjustly by taxing me.

DING! You got it in one! 

The ramifications of that are just fantastic.

You're starting to see how far-reaching the implications of basic morals can be.

Lets start out with a little Reductio ad absurdum, shall we?

You can give it a shot.

I think it is just to sacrifice one to save a million without the consent of the one.

Too bad. You're wrong. I hope the one defends himself against your aggression with lethal force.

You think it is acceptable to sacrifice the million if the 1 doesn't grant their consent.

BS. The hypothetical you are trying to set up here is (1) incomplete, and (2) incorrect. It's incomplete because you haven't even tried to specify why these million people will die unless we kill Joe Schlemiel. It's incorrect because you are trying to blame me for the death of these million people. That's nonsense; I have nothing whatsoever to do with their death. It's the fault of whoever put these million people in peril. Now that person can be killed, because we've already stipulated that self-defense is moral.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

For just one (recent) example, the bit I placed in bold face has nothing to do with either the general point of my posts (cultures are different and have different value systems) or the specific case of Iran's leaders and their culture (apocalyptic, no regard for human life).

OK. Forgive me for leaping to the conclusion that your remark was (intended to be) relevant to the rest of your post. If it was just an aside, then I answered it. I said, "Sure."

The example you cite doesn't involve any dishonesty, though. If you reread the post, you'll see that I treated your statements with absolute fairness. If you feel otherwise, I invite you to say where.

--Len.

[De Selby]

Back to the states, and I still see some arguing whether or not Muslims deserve to be treated as individuals with respect to the right to life.  Looks like Len and I are in the minority on this one.

While we're discussing Iranian statements about nukes, I find it interesting that no one ever bothers to quote the Ayatollahs' religious edicts on the manufacture and possession of nukes.  There is such a thing in Iran, and as we all know, the Ayatollahs make the supreme law of the land:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2003/10/31/MNGHJ2NFRE1.DTL

Led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation's "supreme leader," Iranian clerics have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923539/posts

Senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani said on Friday that production of nuclear bomb is religiously forbidden. "Islam bans shedding blood of nations; on the same ground, production of nuclear bomb and even thinking on its production are forbidden from Islamic point of view," said Ayatollah Kashani in his weekly Friday prayers sermon at Tehran University campus.

Full text from Kashani here:http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/11/islam-forbids-nuclear-weapons-tehran.html

Any ground, anywhere, any religion, be it Judaism or Christianity, one and all, Islamic societies, Islamic thought and the holy Koran believes in security for all. It is so without a doubt. It is so for the Islamic regime and it is so for our constitution.

But hey, I guess Iranians are only hard-core believers who follow their religious dictates when the dictates are things that tend to confirm our biases against Muslims.  When they say things like "Islam absolutely forbids the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons", that's not relevant, because it puts a monkeywrench in the "Islam is bad" machine.

[Werewolf]

Quote
You think it is acceptable to sacrifice the million if the 1 doesn't grant their consent.


BS. The hypothetical you are trying to set up here is (1) incomplete, and (2) incorrect. It's incomplete because you haven't even tried to specify why these million people will die unless we kill Joe Schlemiel. It's incorrect because you are trying to blame me for the death of these million people. That's nonsense; I have nothing whatsoever to do with their death. It's the fault of whoever put these million people in peril. Now that person can be killed, because we've already stipulated that self-defense is moral.

--Len.

We're done...

You fail to address points and skirt issues. I.E. my hypothetical was set up as Reductio ad Absurdum. For example, I was not trying to blame you for the death of the million. I just wanted you to explain how you, as an observer, could justify their deaths in order to save one who didn't want to die which by your criteria made the means to save the hypothetical million unjust and therefore the million must die. Reductio ad Absurdum. You're a smart guy. You knew that but you sidestepped the issue rathe than address it.

You won't be convinced and neither will I.

Later, Len... Have a happy holiday.

[Len Budney]

We're done...

Amazing how often and how quickly one says that when one can't answer the argument.

You fail to address points and skirt issues...

On the contrary: I specifically addressed why your scenario is too ill-posed to imply the conclusion you wished to draw.

For example, I was not trying to blame you for the death of the million. I just wanted you to explain how you, as an observer, could justify their deaths...

That amounts to blame. I don't justify the tides. I don't justify hurricanes. And I don't justify deaths that have nothing whatsoever to do with me. Even asking me to "justify" them is nonsensical. If I asked you to "justify" gravity, would you then "skirt the issue" by refusing to do so? 

--Len.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

hey len?  how many japanese folk you know?met?

[Len Budney]

hey len?  how many japanese folk you know?met?

Quite a few, considering I haven't been to Japan. It's possible I just don't realize how many of them are grateful that Truman nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the Japanese offered to surrender, with only one condition: that Hirohito not be deposed, arrested or killed. Perhaps there are thousands of grateful Japanese out there.

But unlikely. It would be an impressive feat of propaganda.

--Len.