typical think-tank rubbish. an opinion piece masquerading as serious (and unimpeachable, of course!) historical analysis.
the thing is, the piece is desperately short on analysis, though long on subtext. he rather selectively piles up a bunch of data about the tactical situation in the pacific. all more or less correct, but he frames it in a manner that is neither organic nor very coherent. most importantly, however, is that only a single sentence fragment (in parenthesis, to boot) in the entire piece directly addresses the question proposed in the title: "On August 7 (the day after Hiroshima, which no one expected to prompt a quick surrender). . . ." let me give that to you again, in case it flew by too fast (precisely the author's intent): ". . .the day after Hiroshima, which no one expected to prompt a quick surrender. . . ." so then, why *did* truman drop the bomb? -chris b. In a message dated 8/8/05 6:25:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I hope everyone is reading all the attachments to articles on this topic. I found the one in the Weekly Standard to be very credible. 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? >> _______________________________________________ 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/
