What do you think of the decision to drop the Atomic bomb?

[carl]

From 'Forgotten Armies'

August, 1945

Japanese field commanders, far from the reality of the American pounding of the Japanese homeland, were by turn confused, devastated and recalcitrant at the news of the emporer's surrender. Some wanted to fight on: the Japanese had a million men in the SE Asia Command. The Imperial Army and Navy remained in control of large territories which possessed suffiicient resources to fight on, and to the end.

[Dj]

I do not believe that the well being of the Japanese was a consideration in the decision to drop the bomb. However in regards to the moral considerations that are usually tossed about in discussions on the right or wrong of the use it is only fair to point out that the upside wasn't as one sided as would be supposed.

For myself I think the moral justification of dropping the bomb is about equal to the morality of going to war for resources, a different view of religion or a racial justification. In short, none at all.

Was is an all to common occurrence though and moral justifications mean less than whatever justification is tossed out at the time and how deeply it is followed by those that pull the strings. So it is always best to look at the reasons of the time, instead of trying to put our own sensibilities into the framework.



Kenneth wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Good point Dj!"

Travelin wrote: "Well, I'm posting at 7am from Greece, after a night of not really sleeping, about a topic without much emotional attachment for me. But anywa..."

[Dj]

It was in one of the last ones before the movie hit the theater, the Japanese actor from the original is the one that says it.

Can't afford to see it in the theater so have to wait for netflix. But it isn't like I don't have the original to tide me over till then. LOL.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/601004#i-1,...
Here is the link for the trailer in question.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/631416#i-1,...
This one is a clip and it has another even more fun spoiler. Godzilla is no longer the only Monster in the movie.


carl wrote: "Dj wrote: "For what? The book or the movie? Cause what I just tossed out for the movie is in the trailer, I haven't seen the movie yet. LOL.
"

hehe, i meant the movie, i've seen the Godzilla tr..."

[Jon]

I believe Truman did what he thought was in the best interests of ending the war with the information he had. What I have often wondered as well as considered is this question; "If the weapons were available before the Germans surrendered would we have used them to end the European war as our policy was Germany first? And if we did what would the ramifications of this have been?" Jaoan was an island nation whereas Germany was "landlocked." Any thoughts?

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Jon wrote: "I believe Truman did what he thought was in the best interests of ending the war with the information he had. What I have often wondered as well as considered is this question; "If the weapons were..."

It's a good question to pose Jon. I guess we will never know the answer as I don't believe it[the bomb] was ever discussed until after Germany had surrendered but I don't see that they would have done owing to close proximity of other nation states rather than an island as you say - I wonder too if it being a European nation (regardless of the evil done by the regime of the Third Reich) would have influenced any decision, including perhaps public opinion after?

[Colin]

Let me tell you all what I know from having spoken with the people who were involved. Yes, the bomb would have been dropped on Germany had the Soviets not depleted their forces so effectively. The dropping of two bombs on Japan was as much a wake up call, warning Stalin that we had that capability, as it was in getting Japan to surrender. As a result, Soviet troops abandoned Austria which they occupied. Truman, unlike the mentally feeble Roosevelt, saw the coming Soviet danger, as did Churchill. The bomb was advertising, like a "Beware of Dog" sign, as the Iron Curtain fell across eastern Europe.

[Roger]

The 'saving lives' argument wins out all the time. Saved thousands of American and Japanese lives. Any other resolution would have been more costly and more politically messy.

[Manray9]

Travelin wrote: "Colin wrote: "Let me tell you all what I know from having spoken with the people who were involved. Yes, the bomb would have been dropped on Germany had the Soviets not depleted their forces so eff..."

Hate to quibble, but Truman was not "the first president in the U.S. without post-secondary education." He was the last. Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson all spring to mind.

[Dj]

I don't think that Andrew Jackson had a post secondary education either. Suppose I will have to look now.


Travelin wrote: "Colin wrote: "Let me tell you all what I know from having spoken with the people who were involved. Yes, the bomb would have been dropped on Germany had the Soviets not depleted their forces so eff..."

[Dj]

Well a quick hop to Wiki and it seems that he was only the last, and most likely will stay that way at this point. Unless something dramatic changes, and in that he had some post secondary education, just no degree.

Did not graduate from college[edit]
George Washington (The death of his father ended Washington's formal schooling; however, he believed strongly in formal education. In his will, he left money and/or stocks to support three educational institutions.[1])

Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison (attended college but never received a degree)
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore (founded the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York)

Abraham Lincoln (had only about a year of formal schooling of any kind)

Andrew Johnson
Grover Cleveland
William McKinley (attended Allegheny College and Albany Law School but did not receive degrees)

Harry S. Truman (went to business college and law school but did not receive a degree)


Dj wrote: "I don't think that Andrew Jackson had a post secondary education either. Suppose I will have to look now.


Travelin wrote: "Colin wrote: "Let me tell you all what I know from having spoken with t..."

[Don]

I think those interested in this topic might like to read my blog post. It is a tribute to my dad, a Chicago Ironworker, whose WWII contribution helped save 500,000 lives. It is titled Unknown Soldier ..... ( Here )

[Don]

I think those interested in this topic might like to read my blog post. It is a tribute to my dad, a Chicago Ironworker, whose WWII contribution helped save 500,000 lives. It is titled Unknown Soldier ..... ( Here )

[Paul]

Don wrote: "I think those interested in this topic might like to read my blog post. It is a tribute to my dad, a Chicago Ironworker, whose WWII contribution helped save 500,000 lives. It is titled
Unknown S..."
Nice tribute, Don!

[Lilo]

Don wrote: "I think those interested in this topic might like to read my blog post. It is a tribute to my dad, a Chicago Ironworker, whose WWII contribution helped save 500,000 lives. It is titled
Unknown S..."

When one has to choose between The Devil and Beelzebub, one should choose Beelzebub. I think the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were choosing Beelzebub.

I think any defensive war is choosing Beelzebub. Without defensive wars, pure evil would rule the earth. This is very, very sad, but that's the way it is.

I read your blog "Unknown Soldier". And I admire your dad.

[Edward]

I often thought about this and it's hard decision to make but I tend to lean to the side of "the end doesn't justify the means". I would say that even using incendiary bombs comes into question. I believe the axis-governments would use them but we (allies) are not evil and lawless. If we signed the Geneva convention then we need to follow it; the only way I see in not abiding in it is if the enemy doesn't observe it. This is why it's difficult decision that I'm glad I didn't have to make. Please take into account that I have just started reading WWII history and still have a lot to cover. :)

[Stosch]

its well documented by military officials and historians that the war was already won by the US when we dropped the bombs. if you think it was alright to drop the bombs you need to do some more reading and/or have your head examined.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I don't know FrankenStan, I try not to look at things from the perspective of our own times but try to look at it from the eyes of the people at that time. My grandfather and his brother were both fighting in the Pacific against the Japanese and they truly believed that it saved many allied servicemen lives plus untold POW's and civilians under Japanese occupation.

How many more people would have died if the war continued for a few more months till the Japanese finally accepted defeat? Can anyone categorically show when the Japanese were prepared to surrender without the use of the atomic bombs, how many more months would the war have dragged on and how many more innocent civilians and allied service personal would have died in that period?

[happy]

Also remember they had just finished the horror that was Okinawa - less the 6 weeks before. The Japanese knew they were beaten before the first troops landed, but is still cost the US over 14K dead, the Japanese Army -77K and appox 150K civilians to secure the island. If they had invaded Kyushu,which has scheduled for Oct, and had the same type of casualities, and it came out that Truman had the A-Bomb and hadn't used it, the political firestorm would have equaled what happened to Tokyo!

[Lilo]

ANY violent defensive action, be it by knife, sword, gun, mortar, missile, explosive bomb, fire bomb, or nuclear bomb, is terrible, even horrific. (Few ways of dying are pleasant. And warfare provides particularly awful ways to die -- being burned alive, being buried alive, being blown to pieces, dying slowly with your bowels hanging out, etc., etc.)

Yet what's the alternative to defensive warfare (with whatever means)? Without effective defense, evil aggressors will be allowed to rule the world. They will have no qualms to enslave, starve, and torture any nation/race/population whose land/wealth/resources they covet. And when they no longer have use for their slaves, the evil rulers will commit genocide.

Yes, it would be nice if all nations would follow the Geneva convention. Actually, it would be even much nicer if none of the nations started an aggressive war because, then, nobody would have to follow the Geneva convention.

I have always considered it a bit ridiculous to have rules and guidelines about how it is allowed or not allowed to murder someone. War is not a soccer game. Why should it be allowed to bomb cities with civilians and have noncombatants (many of which never wanted that war) burn alive or be buried alive, while it is against the rules to kill civilians and soldiers (many of which never wanted that war either) with several other means?

ALL aggressive warfare should be against the rules. The problem is: Evil rulers wouldn't abide by these rules. This leaves attacked nations (and their allies) no other choice but to defend themselves.

Does anyone think that Hitler would have bat an eye about using a nuclear bomb? He would have used ANY effective weapon he would have been able to obtain.

My heart goes out to every innocent person who was killed or badly injured by the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet my heart also goes out to every innocent person on either side of the war who was killed or badly injured by other weapons.

[happy]

Thnx for those thoughts Lilo. I my opinion wars are fought at the level that one of the sides decide to decend. When one side uses tactics that are questionable, but effective - the other side will eventually copy them.

Two examples - Gas in WW I and the bombing of cities in WW II

[Edward]

happy wrote: "Also remember they had just finished the horror that was Okinawa - less the 6 weeks before. The Japanese knew they were beaten, but is still cost the US over 14K dead, the Japanese Army -77K and a..."

The problem is that the bomb doesn't distinguish civilian from military targets, it just takes everything out. You can't limit civilian casualties; you kill women, babies, children and everything else; and we morally justified it by saying it shortened the war and saved American lives. It's ironic how chemical weapons were banned after WWI because of their effect on soldiers but it's ok to use a Nuclear weapon. I think we committed an atrocity by taking a shortcut to end the war, which should be a war crime. I say an atrocity because of the fact we had some idea what the bomb would do to civilians and we did it anyway. Like I said I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision. There are many viewpoints on this, I just struggle with it if it was the best/right solution to end the war.

[happy]

True, but they had been doing that to Japan's cities for 8 months. IMO the main difference between Hiroshima and Tokyo was the number of airplanes to took to destroy a city - 1 v 300

[Edward]

happy wrote: "True, but they had been doing that to Japan's cities for 8 months. IMO the main difference between Hiroshima and Tokyo was the number of airplanes to took to destroy a city - 1 v 300"

By the way what book would you recommend about this topic?

[happy]

Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Also remember they had just finished the horror that was Okinawa - less the 6 weeks before. The Japanese knew they were beaten, but is still cost the US over 14K dead, the Japanese A..."

Chemical weapons were banned before WW I, but the Germans figured out a loop hole in the conventions. When they were effective in 1915 at the 2nd battle of Ypres, everybody decided to use them, conventions be damned.

As to area bombing of cities - It was the Italians who started in in Ethopia (sp) and the Germans used it in both Spain and later in the early stages of WWII, (Poland, Rotterdam and London during the Blitz). As Author Harris said, "They have sewn the wind and now shall reap the Whirlwind" in justifing his tactics.

[Edward]

happy wrote: "Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Also remember they had just finished the horror that was Okinawa - less the 6 weeks before. The Japanese knew they were beaten, but is still cost the US over 14K dead,..."

Good points of which I didn't know but I think from what I understand that Hitler bombed London after the RAF accidentally bomb a German city, I think, not sure which one.

[happy]

Some books on the bombing of Japan

Martin Caiden's

A Torch to the Enemy
About the first night raid of Tokyo (if you can find it)

Edwin Hoyt's



and Barrett Tillman's

[Edward]

happy wrote: "Some books on the bombing of Japan

Martin Caiden's

(if you can find it)

Edwin Hoyt's



[bookcover:Inferno: The Firebombing of Japan, March 9-August 15,194..."

Thanks Happy.

[happy]

You're welcome

[happy]

Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Also remember they had just finished the horror that was Okinawa - less the 6 weeks before. The Japanese knew they were beaten, but is still cost the US ..."
It is my understanding it was the other way around - some German bombers got lost and dumped their bombs on London and the British retaliated. Plus the Germans switched from day to night bombing (because of losses to the bombers) with the result of bombing cities which are easier to find at night :)

[Edward]

happy wrote: "Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Also remember they had just finished the horror that was Okinawa - less the 6 weeks before. The Japanese knew they were beaten, but is sti..."

Ok thanks for clearing that up; like I said I just started to read about WWII so I have a lot of catching up to do. My next book will be the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer.

[happy]

Travelin wrote: "Some of my older comments here have tended to support FrankenStan's moral outrage. But I'd love to learn where I might track down the details of Japan's impending surrender or destruction before ei..."

John Toland's book


This book is one of the first to tell the story of the War in the Pacific from the Japanese POV. It is over 30 yrs old, and it is dated, but he does talk about the decison to surrender - IRRC, it been some yrs since I've read it, he doesn't get into the Russian angle much.

Again IRRC, he says that war cabinet took a vote after the fall of Okinawa about accepting Unconditional Surrender and it was 3-3 with the emperor abstaining. After the first bomb it was still 3-3 with Hirohito not voting. After Nagasaki, it was still 3-3, but Hirohito said we've got to accept the unacceptable and it was over.

So basically the bombs changed the mind of one man - but he was the one who counted.

[Mike, Assisting Moderator US Forces]

Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "True, but they had been doing that to Japan's cities for 8 months. IMO the main difference between Hiroshima and Tokyo was the number of airplanes to took to destroy a city - 1 v 300..."

Just finished Mission to Tokyo: The American Airmen Who Took the War to the Heart of Japan which is both a history of the B-29 and an account of the fire bombing and atomic bombing strategies.

[happy]

Thats one I really want to read - I just have to make time for it :)

[Colin]

I think many people miss a few major points. The Japanese were informed that we had the weapon, prior to both boms being dropped. There was actually an internal revolt within the Japanses high command, those accepting the terms of surrender, and those opposed, as to not lose face.

Also, the Geneva Convention of 1929 in effect then (revised from the original of 1864) followed on the heels of The Hague I of 1899. Both made targeting civilians and cities illegal, unless they were military targets. Therefore, hitting a factory in the middle of a populated area (which RAF Air Marshall harris called de-housing) and killing the work force was not illegal. Targeting a school or hospital, was of course unless it was shown to be a military operated facility, like Monte Cassino.

Hiroshima and nagazaki were in fact vital military targets, with large populations. Sad reality is the Japs could have surrendered and avoided the catastrophe.

However, Truman, unlike Roosevelt, was no fool either. Dropping the bomb sent the Soviets a powerful statement; look what we have as you reneg on your promise of free elections and autonomy in Eastern Europe.

[Edward]

Mike wrote: "Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "True, but they had been doing that to Japan's cities for 8 months. IMO the main difference between Hiroshima and Tokyo was the number of airplanes to took to destroy a..."

Thanks Mike I'll check it out. This is what makes this group exciting; coming up with books with answers or at least different perspectives.

[Mike]

carl wrote: "Geevee wrote: " saving not just many Americans lives but many Australians, British, Canadian and Indian troops..."

and Japanese."

True. Probably quite a few Japanese civilians as well; as Dj points out, the firebombing of Japanese cities were causing comparable casualties - and those raids would have continued.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Good to see a nice balanced and even-handed discussion on a fairly emotive subject, thanks to all those who posted for some very interesting insights and comments.

[Lilo]

happy wrote: "Thnx for those thoughts Lilo. I my opinion wars are fought at the level that one of the sides decide to decend. When one side uses tactics that are questionable, but effective - the other side wil..."

Does anyone think that the party that's about to lose the war would not use each and any weapon it could get its hands on, Geneva convention or no Geneva convention?

Re Hiroshima/Nagasaki: I think it is the responsibility of any leader of a country to think of his own people first. And if he sees a way to save about 1/2 mio of his soldiers by wiping out 2 cities of the enemy, as horrific as this is, I think such decision is justified.

There is no gentle or humane way to wage a war. War is horrific with or without gas, with or without nuclear weapons.

The remedy cannot be to have nice rules and regulations for war (which won't be adhered to anyway), but to prevent war in the first place.

I think it is wrong to outlaw the assassination of foreign (evil) leaders. Had the CIA assassinated Hitler in time (provided that this would have been possible), 70 mio lives could have been saved, most of them innocent lives.

[Lilo]

Travelin wrote: "Happy, you're right. In this case, someone decided that air bombardment of civilians was justified and it became the chief way of waging wars for anyone with airplanes."

The bombardment of Berlin by the British was a strategic necessity, due to William Shirer's "Berlin Diary". It had not been the first choice.

I don't know too much about the reasons for the bombardment of other cities by the Allies, but I faintly remember that there was also a solid reason for it, if only to lower morale of the German citizens in regard of their loyalty to Hitler who had started this war. It is easy to shout "hurray" as long as the front is far away and no bombs are falling in your neighborhood.

[Lilo]

Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Also remember they had just finished the horror that was Okinawa - less the 6 weeks before. The Japanese knew they were beat..."

I recommend that you read William Shirer's "Berlin Diary" first.

I'll reply to your comments later. I have to pick up 2 cats from the vet before his office closes.

[Edward]

Lilo wrote: "Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Edward wrote: "happy wrote: "Also remember they had just finished the horror that was Okinawa - less the 6 weeks before. The Japanese knew..."

I have that book also but I commited to read The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich with my son. :)

Thank you anyway for the advice Lilo.

[Lilo]

@ everybody (especially Edward):

I am back. — You are right, Edward, one has to struggle with it, and I have struggled with it.

I have come to the following reflections:

1. War is horrific, no matter if with archaic or with nuclear weapons.

2. Women, children, and babies are always involved, no matter what. Intruding armies of all nations and eras have burnt down houses, raped women and children, even babies, and if they didn’t directly slaughter them, they left them to starve or die from exposure (or, after being dishonored by rape, from the hands of their own family members).

3. Not all civilians are innocent. (Some support evil forces.) Not all combatant soldiers should be considered “fair game” (as long as the Geneva convention is honored). Soldiers, too, are human beings. It is a crime to send soldiers into a war that could have be avoided. Not all soldiers are voluntary war participants. (And those who enlist voluntarily to defend their country in a defensive war or for another good cause are no criminals.) Purposely or grossly negligently harming ANY innocents, civilian or non-civilian is a crime. In case of WWII, the crime started long before nuclear bombs were dropped, and it started with Hitler and his henchmen (and only too willing allies, like the Japanese). What happened after was mainly due to the the domino effect.

3. Agreed, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed probably more civilians (of all ages) in a certain time period than any other acts of war had ever done before. Yet does it really matter whether a certain number of lives is claimed within 3 minutes, 3 hours, 3 days, 3 months, 3 years, or 30 years (remember the 30 year war!)? The horrible thing is that innocent people are killed at all. And to the killed individual, it doesn’t make much difference whether he/she is killed alone or in the company of dozens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of others. Every individual can only die for him/herself.

4. Do we really need big numbers killed before we stand up and say: “This is unacceptable.”? Isn’t every brutal killing/murder/massacre unacceptable? O.k., people are getting killed/murdered every day, everywhere on the globe. We don’t know of every single case, and we cannot stand up and do something about every single case. So murders/massacres have to have certain dimensions before they get even reported in the news. Yet , take the Great War. With eventually about 20 mio dead, it was big enough to be known around the globe. So why didn’t the culprits get hanged after the war? Why, for instance, was a Kaiser Wilhelm II allowed to resign and spend his remaining years in wealth and comfort? There were no nuclear bombs in the Great War. So (apart from the gas used), was this war o.k.? I don’t think so.

5. The U.S. didn’t start WWII. Had they not come to aid the other Allies, who were in distress, Hitler and his Axis, in all probability, would have won the war, and Hitler would eventually have ruled the world. (He wasn’t too far off developing nuclear weapons. And he had no intentions to divide the world between him and the Japanese or anyone else.) There are very few “noble wars”, but I would say that the participation of the U.S. in WWII WAS a noble war. It saved the world from being ruled by evil. — The U.S. had sacrificed so much to fight evil forces (millions of soldiers dead, more crippled, so many lives ruined, not even to speak of the immense costs of the war). Should they have sacrificed another 1/2 mio or so soldiers because Japan wasn’t going to surrender, even though it must have known that it had lost the war? I don’t think so. I am sure the decision to use nuclear bombs wasn’t an easy decision. Yet from all I know, it was the lesser of two terrible evils.

6. When it comes to make decisions which horrible weapons to use and which not to use, war is already in progress (or, at least, in the making), that means “the child has already fallen into the well”. Instead of arguing which means to use to slaughter people or burn them alive, I think we should use our energy to discuss how war can be prevented while not allowing evil forces to take over the world. And to accomplish this can be tricky, very tricky.

[Stosch]

well you guys responded better than i expected, thats cool ill follow this group, you guys said alot of insightful stuff

[Edward]

Lilo wrote: "@ everybody (especially Edward):

Liko, Well stated, I like your points especially #6 which we have to address now since many nations have Nuclear Weapons. The goal is to keep this power out of evil hands.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Some excellent points there Lilo, thank you for taking the time to express your views in such a detailed and thought out manner.

[Lilo]

Thank you, guys.

I wish I knew how to accomplish # 6. But here I am at my wits end.

This problem leads to the question if and when a preventive strike is justified. And while there might be the point where all diplomacy has failed, and an attack by evil forces is imminent (maybe even a nuclear attack), the idea of a preventive strike gets one's ethics on slippery ice.

[Lilo]

Travelin wrote: "Lilo wrote: "Thank you, guys.

I wish I knew how to accomplish # 6. But here I am at my wits end.

This problem leads to the question if and when a preventive strike is justified. And while there ..."

I fully agree. "The only way to win is not to play." Yet what if one is forced to play? And WHEN is one forced to play?

An old German proverb says, "Angriff ist die beste Verteidigung." ("Attack is the best defense.") And from the strategic point, this is probably true. Yet this not only raises difficult ethical questions but also necessitates a sound and very difficult evaluation whether or not the other side would, in fact, attack and make defense necessary.

Take, for example, Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Should the West wait until Iran has this fully accomplished (or until Iran has moved these sites so far under ground that they can't be reached with air strikes), or should Israel (with the approval of the U.S.) send a rocket to wipe out these nuclear weapons development sites (or whatever they are called)?

I don't have an answer.

I can understand Netanyahu's wish to wipe out these sites as long as this is possible. (I also realize that Israel is in shooting distance of missiles from Iran.)

I can also understand Pres. Obama's strategy to keep trying to negotiate a contract with Iran to give up its nuclear plans, even though it is unlikely that Iran will adhere to any promises. (And I also realize that the U.S. are not in shooting distance of missiles from Iran.)

The different outlooks of Netanyahu and Obama also resemble my own inner self. From nature, I am a fighter and would like to take out Iran's nuclear development sites. From my (to this day) 75-year-old wisdom :-), I tend to side with Obama, but at the same time, I am afraid that not following Netanyahu's advice might be a mistake.

This is if we only look at Iran. If we look at Iran's, most likely, allies, Russia and North Korea, in a case of an Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear development sites, I think we are better to side with Pres. Obama. Any preventive strike on Iran might open a Pandora's box. If Russia and/or North Korea should get involved, we might have WWIII. O.k., we might also have WWIII, if Iran starts playing with nuclear missiles, but an preemptive strike on Iran might speed this.

While attack might be the best defense, a premature preventive strike might cause a war that might have never happened.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Just back from a week's break to Herefordshire and good to see the group tackling this subject again and all done with opinion/viewpoints that are offered and accepted in the spirit that makes this group a pleasure to moderate.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Well said Geevee!