Та нали пред очите ми ще са изчезналите преди мен свободогласници?

Тук след големи напъни на мозъчните гънки на Бонго-бонго от Африка и този Булдур ли е Мадур ли е

моля да ме информирате от де се взе това тежко?

US President Harry Truman also recognised their significance. When he was told of the successful test of the atomic bomb - and then took the decision to use it with no warning - he wrote in his diary: "We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark."
...
Foremost in Truman's mind was the prospect of huge American losses.
Truman wrote: "I asked General Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokyo plain and other places in Japan. It was his opinion that such an invasion would cost at a minimum a quarter of a million American casualties."
In his biography of Truman, David McCullough says that plans for an invasion were real.
"Nor, it must be stressed, was there anything hypothetical about preparations for the invasion - on both sides - a point sometimes overlooked in later years," he wrote.
"Truman had earlier authorised the Chiefs of Staff to move more than one million troops for a final attack on Japan. Japan had some 2.5 million regular troops on the home islands."

7. I will not agree or disagree with the view that democide was one of the necessities of the war. The argument is irrelevant. To me, democide is wrong, whether it promoted the war or not. But for those who do justify this democide, I would like to see the moral argument made explicit. When is murdering en mass an unarmed population justified? This is an ethical question, not empirical/factual. Even if one adopts a situational ethic and says that in some circumstances a utilitarian calculus applies, that is an ethical choice (I accept Hume's guillotine--facts cannot logically justify ethical axioms). To help clarify the ethics involved, consider this question: can one ever ethically justify committing genocide? Is genocide ever right? I answer no. Absolutely. Then, if this is ethically true of genocide, isn't it also ethnically true of democide, a component of which is genocide? (Keep in mind that for some genocide scholars genocide = democide.)

8. This is not to deny that democide is situational, and its immorality is inherently multidimensional. Consider three cases. Person X rapes and tortures to death a child. While holding up a store, person Y shots to death a clerk suddenly reaching into a drawer. Person Z gives his wife, who is terminally ill, paralyzed and in acute pain, an overdose of sleeping pills. All three cases are murder, and thereby labeled immoral. But, they are situationally different, and are thus, different degrees of immorality. Indiscriminate city bombing by the Anglo-Americans was immoral and on par with such bombing by their enemies. But, to call it democide does not mean that this democide was immorally the same as much of the democide the Japanese and Germans did by hand.

Но ти не се отчайвай. Светът на фантазиите е безкраен - може да се рееш там до безкрай.