Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 26

On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote:
People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!

If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.

Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.

War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.

On November 04 2008 02:57 bahaa wrote:
Yeah it's impossible according to the USA to target "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq and Afghanstan without killing civilians, which makes it justifiable right? Then I will come and wage war on you and say it's impossible to tell where you are and drop a bomb to slay your whole neighborhood in the process. Human blood isn't cheap. Everyone who harms a fingertip of an innocent person will be held accountable for his/her actions on judgement day (that if you believe in it, depends).

On November 04 2008 00:55 fig_newbie wrote:


Rather than be astounded, why not consider the opposing points?


In true wartime there is no such thing as "rules". IF there are rules they are almost always retrospectively announced (after the benefits of the action in question are milked dry), and always is always performed by the winners, sometimes with the critical eye of history. The term "war criminal" is completely subjective, and if youre going to point to Nuremberg to make your point, dont; I do agree that what they did was completely reprehensible and horrible but if the Germans had won and the Nazi vision won out what do you think would have happened? In Hitler's vision, that was "justifiable".

I see your point that civilian lives should be a completely different category from that of a soldier (i mean, who wants to be involved in fighting right? I'm a pacifist too.), but if you think wars are just a chess match between countries your idealism is horribly, horribly misplaced. Wars are avoided because they can cause devastation to the most sacred untouchable parts of your life. Its a rape of culture, land and people on your enemy on a massive scale and the more critical the resources being fought over, the nastier all combatants will get.

World War II was epic in ways many people fail to comprehend the magnitude of the event. From the US perspective, after loosing hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both fronts, why in the living fuck would you risk any more of your soldiers to save ANYONE from a country that you were at war with? In a humanitarian perspective, 10 soldiers lost is equal to 10 civilians lost (though some of you would argue not). In that situation, wherein you have the choice of either

1. starving Japan through blockade
2. orchestrating a full-scale invasion of Japan
3. dropping the bomb

# 3 was the most capable of fulfilling the goals of the US, in minimizing casualties to its own people and economy, at least in the eyes of US brass AND politicians.

The problem with the term "justification" is that like many concepts considered absolute...its not. Its a relative term, dictated by the zeitgeist and those in power.

I'd like to pose this question too:
If today the US was nuked by Russia (I know some of you consider that "justified" anyways. Fuck America, right?), what do you think the response would be? Would it be justified?

On November 04 2008 03:01 IzzyCraft wrote:

=p The U.S. Spends billions of dollars on smart bombs to just take out certain positions with minimal collateral damage. We could have easily spend 1/4th that money on dumb bombs and level the entire place. Really it's just splitting hairs.