Why Do Other Countries In Asia Resent Japan?

[Toranaga]

Well, the intensity shouldn't have anything to do with it. 1 civilian or 1,000,000 shouldn't matter. Playing with numbers is a blatant disregard of human life. I'm sure there are people who say that the last raid on Tokyo was worse because more people died than in Hiroshima. That argument is bullshit, sorry, how can anyone, who wasn't there, even say that? What gives people, born after the war, the right to come up with something like that? I don't think that the average citizen from Hiroshima, Tokyo, Dresden, Coventry or Nanking cared about that when he tried to survive somehow. I dare anyone to go up to a survivor and say that right into his or her face.

My grandmother told me how the air raids were for her, the sirens, the running, people praying in the evening "God, please no air raid tonight". And Kapfenberg (my hometown) is only a small industrial city, yet I think the fear of the people from what could possibly come upon them was the same as the fear of the people in Tokyo or Hamburg or Nanking or London.

I wouldn't want to trade positions with any of them, not in Tokyo, not in Hiroshima, not in Nanking, not in Kapfenberg...

And well, sorry, no bombs have ever been dropped to save lives, that's merely propaganda to justify massmurder.

The nuclear weapons were a sign towards the USSR "Look what we've got". I don't think many people know how close the western allies and the USSR were to a war inside the war when they reached Austria in March/April 1945.

Yugoslav forces and British troops made a race for the province of Corinthia. The Tito troops wanted parts of it for their "Greater Yugoslavia", and the British had their own interests and saw those endangered by a "Greater Yugoslavia". The British arrived 30 minutes before the Yugoslavs, but both parties made camp in the capital, full scale displaying their weapons at each other.

Churchill gave the order that the Yugoslav forces had to be removed from Austria, if neccessary, by force. Alexander, at that time in charge of the British army in the south, wasn't sure if the troops would fight the Yugoslavs with the same enthusiasm. And Churchill wrote back "They will warm up once the shooting starts". A war inside the war was possible. In the end Stalin gave in, but not before storming into what was later the British zone and steal what was still intact of our industry.

That was in April/May 1945. By July/August 1945 the relationship between the western allies and the USSR was already pretty bad. After all, it was all about influence and power in Europe. And I'm sure that Churchill and Roosevelt (and later Trueman) knew very well who would be the future enemy once the war would be over.

I still think that the reactions of the military part of the US high command clearly show that there was no military reason for Hiroshima and Nagasaki (MacArthur, for example, said he wasn't even asked). I also doubt that an invasion was ever a real option. There was no reason to invade, laying siege on the islands would have been enough. Cut the country off from all imports, give it a few weeks or months, done (and the US surely had the means to do that). And in August 1945 there wasn't much left of a Japanese infrastructure. The last air raids were done against basically no air defence (there were still a few fighters and pilots left, but those were pretty much insignificant, except for people like Sakai, etc, who had one ort wo B-29 kills in the end of th war, but over all, unimportant).

I don't see any moral or military justification for both nukes.

I still see the use of both nukes as someone, who's already on the ground, getting kicked in the ribs. That's not brave or heroic. That's unneccessary and pretty pathetic.

The way I see it, you can save 100 men by sacrificing one of your own, yep. But that only applies for the military. Killing civilians, no matter how many and for whatever reason is a warcrime and should be punished. We did it in the war, the Russians did it, the Japanese, the British, the Yugoslavs, the Danish, French, Norwegians and the Americans too. Everyone did it. Everyone committed warcrimes, that's the way it is. That's how modern warfare goes. (I know for myself, from urban warfare training, that I will shoot at a noise in an urban scenario. It could be a civilian, but it could also be a hostile and I'm not taking that risk, sorry.)

The raid on Dresden, for example, didn't shorten the war, nor did it change anything. It was a direct attack on civilians. And it didn't change anything. "Moral bombing" never worked, it usually had the opposite effect, troops started to fight back harder. It didn't work after Adlertag against the British Islands, and it didn't work against Germany or Japan. American bomberfleets basically annihilated several Japanese cities. Did the troops stop fighting because of it? No. Did parts of the military want to stop fighting after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No. Eventually the emperor with moderate parts of the military got his way, but that's it. And well, the German situation wasn't much different. You had fanatics fighting till the end. There was heavy combat even in April/May 1945, and some (mainly SS units) continued with terror even after the truce (ultimately they failed, because people had enough of it and the allies forces outnumbered them vastly).

Anyway... I should stop ranting lol

[Babypicu]

yeah forget about this stuff and come back to aya forums!

[bmwracer]

Babypicu wrote:

yeah forget about this stuff and come back to aya forums!

I should talk, but jeez, get a life, willya?

[niko2x]

Toranaga wrote:

I can't hold the American bomber crews responsible, since they were soldiers, they followed orders. That's how the military works, in war and in peace. You get an order, you do what is ordered. There's no way around. I don't think that any of the pilots, bombardiers or gunners on the B-17s and Lancesters that bombed the industry in my hometown really wanted to do that, or wanted to be there. But they had to do it, because it was war, because their squadron leader ordered them to do it, and he got his orders from his wing leader, who got his orders from the group commander, who got his orders from... etc etc etc... In war bad things happen, people die, that's the way it is. I can't change the past for hating the bomber crews for what they've done. Sure, the bombs have killed countless of innocent civilians on every front on every theater. But honestly. If I would have been in their position, I would have done it too. It was war after all and you can't just say "no, I won't do that" when you're in the military in a war.

having actually being in the military, I could not agree with you more. Whether you agree or disagree with the rhetorics of your superior, these are orders and it's gotta be done.

Toranaga wrote:

But I'll tell you one thing. I will never, under no circumstance, ever apologize for what happened in WW2, nor will I ever feel responsible for it. I wasn't there, my parents weren't even born back then, my grandmothers were both in their early teens. And, there is no collective guilt, the concept is sick, if that would be applied for everyone the outcome would be insane. The longer I think of it the more I'm tempted to say that Japan shouldn't apologize anymore at all. And I should go into Austrian politics. Of course, if I'd say all of this out loud on TV or radio I'd be called a nazi.

if you DID say all those things in in TV/radio/mass media, being in figure in politics, you'll prolly HAVE to apologize for whay you've just said. How ironic...
_________________

Here's my Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/kwan1?ref=profile

[BmwM3Rod]

The Man wrote:

First of all, I'd like to state that yes, there is no denying the U.S. government's apology to wrongfully interned Americans (no qualifier needed. AMERICANS were wrongfully interned, and that's that). The dollar amounts can be debated, sure, but no one can correctly state that the U.S. said sorry about this most embarrassing time in our history. The U.S. put their money where their mouth was (yes, could've been more than $20,000) and a WRITTEN APOLOGY to the victim(s). That's solid. That having been said, it's because of these kinds of mea culpas that my country takes responsibility for's what makes me happy to be living in this greatest nation on the planet. No one can credibly deny that assumption of blame. Hmm. Sounds pertinent to our topic at hand. And speaking of making amends: It's friggin' why I keep saying "Japan, apology for ya'll past Imperialist ways if you want to even begin to have a bigger stake in the world/security community." They probably realize it, too. Is it a case where the cost exceeds the benefit for them? But, if Japan seriously wants to "move on," if they wanna be amongst a council of Allied nations, they need to beef up, they need to make a steadfast apology for the ages. They'll NEVER be on that Security Council if they don't make a solid apology for their Imperial ways.

The Man

Hmmm...do you only respond to what you can answer?

Yes...the US government gave a formal written apology to those american interned. You left out the part it occurred 47 years later when over half of those interned already died. Yeah...the $20K is debatable.

Okay now...I've said this before...I don't think it matters what type of apology is given by Japan. No matter how it is done or said....there will still be those who are not satisfied. You don't even argue against this point.

So I repeat....I think your request is somewhat honorable but it isn't going to change people's minds.

And from my viewpoint of Japan...they have taken responsibility for their past wrong doings. Look at all the aid Japan has provided to both China and Korea and many other countries. Action speak louder than words and those words of apology have been given too. It's amazing how so many ignore or refuse to acknowledge this point.

It's like China is willing to accept the apology while putting its hand out to receive money but when this aid is discussed of being cut or gas drilling rights come up the war atrocities come out all over again.

And as far as the UN Security Council deal....please elaborate yours or China's or Korea's gripe on this. It says "Security". How does "security" involve the gas rights? Are you afraid Japan is going to become a military power again? Is that it? I don't see you nor China nor Korea complaining about Japan sending its troops over to Iraq.

And China operating a nucleear sub in Japan waters (near Okinawa) in November 2004 and they get caught and busted on it and initially first refuse to apologize gives China the right to be a permanent member on the UN Security Council? How about all the atrocities the Chinese government has been committed against its own people? Covering it up too in their own text books?

And as far as the UN Security Council...Japan is already on it. It got elected to it from a 2 year membership standpoint in January 2005.

Funny how you say they will NEVER be on that Security Council if they don't make a solid apology for the imperial ways.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

Maybe they did make a solid apology in alot of people's eyes. Maybe you can see this now.

[dochira]

BmwM3Rod wrote:

And as far as the UN Security Council...Japan is already on it. It got elected to it from a 2 year membership standpoint in January 2005. Funny how you say they will NEVER be on that Security Council if they don't make a solid apology for the imperial ways. http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

I think The Man is referring to Japan's desire to hold a permanent seat on the UNSC. With China occupying one of the 5 current positions, they have veto powers.

[The Man]

Toranaga wrote:

And well, sorry, no bombs have ever been dropped to save lives, that's merely propaganda to justify massmurder.

I dunno about this one, man. Wasn't exactly U.S. propaganda that made folks jump off a cliff in Okinawa; you asked those that survived that island, could they credibly say that it was U.S.-made pamphlets that made their friends and family leap?
Certainly wasn't U.S. propaganda to know that if the Emperor said so, ordinary citizens would go up against Allied soldiers.

dochira wrote:

I think The Man is referring to Japan's desire to hold a permanent seat on the UNSC. With China occupying one of the 5 current positions, they have veto powers.

Thanks, dochira.

Additional information regarding Japan's elected seat (not permanent) on the UN Security Council can be found at wikipedia and here: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

and here: http://www.un.int/japan/

BmwM3Rod wrote:

Okay now...I've said this before...I don't think it matters what type of apology is given by Japan. No matter how it is done or said....there will still be those who are not satisfied. You don't even argue against this point.

Sigh. I think I've stated and implied such before -- getting 100% satisfaction is not the goal [they WILL never get that, I'll admit; but, that's not the point]. This is not a customer service issue. The POINT, in all actuality, is just finally, finally for Japan to craft an honest apology. That should be the goal for Japan. One that'll disarm any detractors who see such an apology; one that'd disagreers, normal and radicals, get embarrassed to criticize such an apology.

An apology that can be perennially pointed to does not exist.

Driling rights, OK. What's the next thing gonna be? Monopoly on robot-making? Simply put, it just seems EASY for Japan's East Asian neighbors to point to WWII atrocities. What Japan has to ask themselves is this: are we MAKING it easy for them to do so (i.e., cushy "regrets" by Prime Minister[s] that might be doing more harm than good; letting the lack of regret is textbook spread like wildfire in the news, if, in fact, that's the case).

Honest language in such an apology; the diet can probably come up with something if they can manage to stop yelling at each other sometimes. Not just a Prime Minister saying "regret." You can "regret" not attending a wedding, you know? I'm paraphrasing by using the word "regret," but, every time I read a news article each time a Japanese Prime Minister apologies for Japan (apologies FOR Japan, let's stress), I end up thinking, "that's it?"

I don't blame the radicals (though, they, in particular need to be less violent sometimes) or normal folk of East Asia for viewing the words coming out of the Prime Ministers for WWII apologies as cardboard-like, quite frankly.

And, lastly (I just REALLY must make this clear)

BmwM3Rod wrote:

Funny how you say they will NEVER be on that Security Council if they don't make a solid apology for the imperial ways. http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html Maybe they did make a solid apology in alot of people's eyes. Maybe you can see this now.

I never said that Japan wasn't an elected member of the UN Security Council; they certainly are, and their term ends in 2006. It doesn't mean that they won't get re-elected, but, if they were a permanent member which Japan, let's admit, is trying to do for themselves, they wouldn't have to worry about becoming elected.

So, what I'm saying is I don't think Japan can even DREAM of becoming a PERMANENT member unless include, in their efforts, coming up with an apology as prescribed by The Man (and, many others I'd surmise).

[niko2x]

The Man wrote:

Wasn't exactly U.S. propaganda that made folks jump off a cliff in Okinawa; you asked those that survived that island, could they credibly say that it was U.S.-made pamphlets that made their friends and family leap? Certainly wasn't U.S. propaganda to know that if the Emperor said so, ordinary citizens would go up against Allied soldiers.

actually, i have pretty good source (my in laws) that it was the JPN gov't who told the okinawan civilians to jump manza beach (or any of the ones that was coral-lined cliffs) before the the "white-devils" that was the US forces is coming to rape and kill them.
_________________

Here's my Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/kwan1?ref=profile

[BmwM3Rod]

dochira wrote:

I think The Man is referring to Japan's desire to hold a permanent seat on the UNSC. With China occupying one of the 5 current positions, they have veto powers.

You have a right to believe whatever you want but this is what he wrote:

Per The Man:
"They'll NEVER be on that Security Council if they don't make a solid apology for their Imperial ways."

So I believe I have a right to claim The Man said that they will NEVER be on there but in reality Japan already is on the UN Security Council.

[Akakage]

I've been lurking this thread ever since it's started, it is very interesting and I enjoy to read each opinions. So far, I have no comment.

bmwracer wrote:

I should talk, but jeez, get a life, willya?

Well , maybe this one..it doesn't have any relation to the topic but it really cracks me up

[Smiley_18]

Akakage wrote:

I've been lurking this thread ever since it's started, it is very interesting and I enjoy to read each opinions. So far, I have no comment.

Same here. I find this thread really interesting, and it's nice to hear different opinions reagarding this topic.

[bmwracer]

Smiley_18 wrote:

Same here. I find this thread really interesting, and it's nice to hear different opinions reagarding this topic.

Make it three.

[BmwM3Rod]

The Man wrote:

Sigh. I think I've stated and implied such before -- getting 100% satisfaction is not the goal [they WILL never get that, I'll admit; but, that's not the point]. This is not a customer service issue. The POINT, in all actuality, is just finally, finally for Japan to craft an honest apology. That should be the goal for Japan. One that'll disarm any detractors who see such an apology; one that'd disagreers, normal and radicals, get embarrassed to criticize such an apology. An apology that can be perennially pointed to does not exist. .

Sigh...I think I've stated and implied before that the remaining percentage who don't want to believe an apology was given will always think that no matter how it is done or how you recommend it. If the Japan's Prime Minister's visits and apologies are good enough for many or most then it should work right?

It's ironic you ask Japan do certain things for a certain government who easily controls its people in Communist China. If those apologies where given...somehow I don't think it will be communicated to its people properly. It seems that is the case so far.

The Man wrote:

Driling rights, OK. What's the next thing gonna be? Monopoly on robot-making? Simply put, it just seems EASY for Japan's East Asian neighbors to point to WWII atrocities. What Japan has to ask themselves is this: are we MAKING it easy for them to do so (i.e., cushy "regrets" by Prime Minister[s] that might be doing more harm than good; letting the lack of regret is textbook spread like wildfire in the news, if, in fact, that's the case). .

Hmm....you say EASY. You sure? It don't seem to me people buying it any longer outside of east asia. Most reports feel China is wrong in these particular incidents. Japan got voted on to the UN Security Council something you said would NEVER happen but it appears you are changin your words now since you got caught on this.

The Man wrote:

Honest language in such an apology; the diet can probably come up with something if they can manage to stop yelling at each other sometimes. Not just a Prime Minister saying "regret." You can "regret" not attending a wedding, you know? I'm paraphrasing by using the word "regret," but, every time I read a news article each time a Japanese Prime Minister apologies for Japan (apologies FOR Japan, let's stress), I end up thinking, "that's it?" I don't blame the radicals (though, they, in particular need to be less violent sometimes) or normal folk of East Asia for viewing the words coming out of the Prime Ministers for WWII apologies as cardboard-like, quite frankly..

Hmmm....not sure why you state the Prime Minister has only said "regret". From what I've read it's much more than that. Visiting a Chinese shrine bowing deeply to it. Placing a reef on it. Pushing for peace. Japan giving billions in aid to China. And STILL people say...."that's it?"

The Man wrote:

I never said that Japan wasn't an elected member of the UN Security Council; they certainly are, and their term ends in 2006. It doesn't mean that they won't get re-elected, but, if they were a permanent member which Japan, let's admit, is trying to do for themselves, they wouldn't have to worry about becoming elected. So, what I'm saying is I don't think Japan can even DREAM of becoming a PERMANENT member unless include, in their efforts, coming up with an apology as prescribed by The Man (and, many others I'd surmise)...

And I repeat...now you claim that you never said Japan wasn't an elected member of the UN Security Council. Hmmm....funny to me you said just that in your earlier post. I don't think I have to quote it again....we all saw what was posted. But people will believe what they want to believe. You said in your own words NEVER.

Per The Man:
"They'll NEVER be on that Security Council if they don't make a solid apology for their Imperial ways."

Let me ask you this...how do you think they got elected in the first place even on a "temporary" basis if you don't think the apologies necessary were given. Well? They got 2/3 of the vote need to become a member.

So now it appears your stance has changed to they will never be a "permanent" member. Gee....so you think Japan never apologized right but some how they got elected on a 2 year basis but since the apology wasn't right they won't be elected as a permanet member. Okay....

Even if I believe Japan didn't apologize properly I still don't believe that means they won't be voted on permanently. Money talks. Japan is the 2nd largest donor next to the US. If Japan gives enough aid to those countries voting then hey....come on.

Now of course some will twist this around and make statements that the only reason why Japan is giving money or aid to other countries is for votes.

[The Man]

BmwM3Rod wrote:

You have a right to believe whatever you want but this is what he wrote: Per The Man: "They'll NEVER be on that Security Council if they don't make a solid apology for their Imperial ways." So I believe I have a right to claim The Man said that they will NEVER be on there but in reality Japan already is on the UN Security Council.

They are . . . right now, they are. But, in an elected position, meaning that they might not be on the Security Council after 2006 ('cause they'd have to get re-elected). Japan has no veto power as an elected member, yes?

They're not a permanent member, and that, apparently, is a big enough difference for Japan themselves to notice -- they've been trying for a permanent seat for how long already? And, I keep saying, I wonder why they ain't being taken seriously.

If I made a mistake in not clarifying that I had originally meant their role as an elected member (I certainly intended to state that; though, also, in my defense, I'm not here to TEACH about the council), I'll own up to it. Heh, still doesn't change the fact that Japan is not a permanent member.

I'm learning stuff, too, from this thread, from ya'll's what I'll admit, too. And, I appreciate the opportunity to exchange ideas.

Sigh. I need a drink after all these days of typing. And I don't DRINK. Maybe that'll be cool, if we could all sit around and discuss this drinking (one diet Coke, please . . . and who knows what drink I'll end up with later).

[FusilliBernie]

Toranaga wrote:

The nuclear weapons were a sign towards the USSR "Look what we've got". I don't think many people know how close the western allies and the USSR were to a war inside the war when they reached Austria in March/April 1945. [...] That was in April/May 1945. By July/August 1945 the relationship between the western allies and the USSR was already pretty bad. After all, it was all about influence and power in Europe. And I'm sure that Churchill and Roosevelt (and later Trueman) knew very well who would be the future enemy once the war would be over. I still think that the reactions of the military part of the US high command clearly show that there was no military reason for Hiroshima and Nagasaki (MacArthur, for example, said he wasn't even asked). I also doubt that an invasion was ever a real option. There was no reason to invade, laying siege on the islands would have been enough. Cut the country off from all imports, give it a few weeks or months, done (and the US surely had the means to do that). And in August 1945 there wasn't much left of a Japanese infrastructure. The last air raids were done against basically no air defence (there were still a few fighters and pilots left, but those were pretty much insignificant, except for people like Sakai, etc, who had one ort wo B-29 kills in the end of th war, but over all, unimportant). I don't see any moral or military justification for both nukes.

yeah....no problem here... but corrections.

According to official US reports, it was a military decision to drop both bombs on Japan. However, you forgot about the Yalta Conference between the Big Three. On August 8th, Russia would join America in the fight with Japan. Russia would also receive joint control over the railroads in Manchuria, some land, and privileges in two of Manchuria's ports. America saw this as a threat and decided to drop a uranium bomb in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 and a plutonium bomb in Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945. Clearly, this was a diplomatic message to the Russians to stay away. Americans had already cut off most of their supplies and dropped other bombs on Japan, doing more than enough damage. Invasion was the option, however, that would take a few months. Truman would then order the dropping of the atomic bomb at the Potsdam Conference on Auugust 2nd because Japan wouldn't surrender There was a power vacuum at the end of WWII, which the US and USSR were the only ones left standing. Russia would never receive what was promised at Yalta, which would consequently lead to the Cold War.

FusilliBernie shoots and scores.....man...i'm so bored[/b]

[ahochaude]

The Man wrote:

Sigh. I need a drink after all these days of typing. And I don't DRINK. Maybe that'll be cool, if we could all sit around and discuss this drinking (one diet Coke, please . . . and who knows what drink I'll end up with later).

Heh, some Jack Daniels at my house, huh?!
_________________

[The Man]

ahochaude wrote:

Heh, some Jack Daniels at my house, huh?!

Hahhah. Please tell me that you at least OPENED that up, haha [long story, folks, ahha].

See, what I like about what I'm saying (oh, goodness, how crass and conceited of me. Oh, well) is that I think it's reasonable enough to ask "where is it?" But, I can't find these arguments elsewhere. I'm not saying I'm the inventor of it; in fact, I hope there are folks who can agree.

What of a future Prime Minister that decides NOT to lay wreaths during his or her term? That leaves the door open for "see, I told you, so, arguments." This is why I'm advocating for a perennialist, for the ages apology (and when I say "for the age," I guess you can interchange that phrase with "honest"). What's of a future Prime Minister who decides to totally ignore duties to fly over to the Chinas, the South Koreas to say "sorry." If there's a Prime Minister that refuses to apologize in the future for Japan's Imperial-ness? Who'd be comfortable with someone like this? But if there's a Japan-sponsored apology that trumps him or her anyway? Especially at a time if Japan DOES (somehow) become a permanent member of the UN Security Council? That'll say something (and, on an unrelated note, act as a primer to impeach such a politician ).

As part-Japanese myself (oh, NO!!! It can't be!!!! YES IT CAN!!!!) in some form, I'm linked to those islands as well. And, quite frankly, I see this non-apology -- these seemingly obligatory gestures from Prime Minsters -- is a gaping hole when it comes to that part of my heritage.

BmwM3Rod wrote:

Hmm....you say EASY. You sure? It don't seem to me people buying it any longer outside of east asia. Most reports feel China is wrong in these particular incidents.

Yes easy for East Asian nations is what I'm saying. And it's THESE nations that Japan has to deal with, yes? Doesn't seem to matter what those folks outside of East Asia think. The region has their matters to deal with (I think someone even mentioned the possibility of an Asian Union in the future? Was it Toranaga who said that? If THAT happens, is it gonna be any LESS easy for WWII protests against Japan to rise up? Or more? Never mind, maybe the creation of an AU will demand a steadfast apology from Japan at the onset. I'm no expert).

BmwM3Rod wrote:

You said in your own words NEVER.

Yep, I said it. Don't forget to include "if they never make an effort at the type of apology The Man is advocating" because mistake before, whetever, that's what I meant (and I'm clarifying it now, at this time in our history when Japan's far off from UN Security Council permanent-ness, so take note) -- if the type of apology I'm talkin' 'bout NEVER comes out of Japan, you will not see Japan as a permanent member on the Council.
And we can all see if my prediction ends up right . . . or wrong.
Stay tuned.

[ahochaude]

The Man wrote:

Hahhah. Please tell me that you at least OPENED that up, haha [long story, folks, ahha].

Hahaha. Yes, I have as a matter of fact. Only half the bottle is gone though. I'm not a "hard core" whiskey drinker. But beer, on the other hand, well let's just say that a 12 pack will not exist very long in my house.

On another note, very interesting read here. I am learning a lot by just reading this thread, however I do not know enough of the topic to post any opinion. Maybe it's time for that bottle of Jack?!
_________________

[The Man]

By the way (now, see, no one's gonna believe that I'm NOT a drinker now; but, it's true, I only like diet Coca Colas as my beverage of choice), thanks for those beers AND pizza, ahochaude!

[ahochaude]

The Man wrote:

By the way (now, see, no one's gonna believe that I'm NOT a drinker now; but, it's true, I only like diet Coca Colas as my beverage of choice), thanks for those beers AND pizza, ahochaude!

No problem! We'll do it again sometime!

Folks: The Man does not drink btw. Only by peer pressure, by (of course) your's truly.
_________________