| Forum Index > General Forum |
Railz
United States1449 Posts
When civilians are part of the war effort, which usually is the case in a total war, all bets are off. Notice how the only saving grace of the world for the past 50 years was MAD. On a side note, Hiroshima was a heavy military economy based city and had not yet been firebombed, so it was the one of the few fully untouched military economy based cities. | ||
|
LordofToast
United Kingdom250 Posts
Maybe it did save lives but at the end of the day I don't think any of the killing in WII was right or just. | ||
|
NastyMarine
United States1252 Posts
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides. The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that. Dont misplace sympathy with what was rational at the time. Realize what was at stake for all of those who were in the war. What if things went diffferently (including the bombings)? Realize that there is a timeline of crazy fucking events that spawned many different decisions and tactics during that war. Lets justhope we'll never be forced into a WW situation like that again. Bcause the protection of ANY government's people is priority over all. If you were in their place at that time, you'd want to protect your people as well, especially when you know right across the way (the pactific and atlantic) THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS were being manhandled. There is a time where strong action is not encouraged but provoked and escalated. | ||
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
Jeeze either no war is justified or you look out for the interests of your own country. Which one seems eaiser | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 03 2008 22:38 HnR)hT wrote: In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children? The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding. What I am saying is that Pearl Harbor started a WAR. These 2 bombs did not start a war. In fact, they ended the worst war of all time. Pearl Harbor is worse because it started a war that resulted in millions of deaths including all the deaths caused by the 2 bombs. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 04 2008 02:13 Jibba wrote: Our war declaration was eventually going to happen no matter what, FDR just needed clearance for it because he kind of actually cared about what the public thought. It's strange to imagine a president like that. I don't know exactly what would have happened. But attacking without declaring war first is the worst thing you can do. Like backstabbing in SC. Grrr... | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
bahaa
Lebanon29 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
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). =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. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 04 2008 02:45 Jibba wrote: It's sneaky, but I definitely don't think it's the worst thing a country can do. Maybe starting (or at least expaning upon) the biggest war the world has known could be the worst thing a country could do? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Leopold II was as much a bastard as any fascist dictator. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
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. Get this: no one thinks its cool because someone has a lots of bombs. USA is so sad to brag about their guns and weapons all the time. Disgusting. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28876 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
fig_newbie
749 Posts
On November 04 2008 01:35 HnR)hT wrote: A very, very misguided post. Considering that I actually held the view that the a-bombs were justified for quite some time before changing my mind, I'm fully aware of the reasoning behind the "opposing points". It is absolutely false and wrong to say that there are no rules in wartime. Yes, minor atrocities in warfare are generally unavoidable and it's unreasonable to expect war to be entirely "clean". But this in no way implies that there are no rules, period. Just because human beings can't act honorably and humanely all the time doesn't mean that we shouldn't even strive to be honorable and humane. Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference between spontaneous minor atrocities committed by soliders who are literally fighting for their and their comerades' lives, and a top-down POLICY of mass murder. WHY was the unconditional surrender of Japan so necessary that it was worth it to destroy innocent human life on an unprecedented scale? The point I'm trying to make here is that the agreed upon rules of engagement in wartime situations flies out the window when the stakes are high enough. I am not saying that we shouldn't act reasonably or like human beings - I just wanted to shed light on the the greyish nature of "justification" and why people did what they did. Whatever the case was, the fact that the bombs WERE dropped implies that there was "justification" for it by the government. You may disagree with their debriefed reasoning, but given the situation I suspect it had less to do with irrational hatred than than a cold, calculated maneuver to cement the US at the top of the international food chain (I believe the US military lives spared was only a secondary priority) and thus justified. To Americans, of course. | ||
|
TheosEx
United States894 Posts
| ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
By today's standards we would say it was unjustified. But you have to remember that the world has been free of a major military conflict for over 60 years. It was a WORLD war, with MILLIONS dying on all sides. The power to end it with a gesture from single weapon is way too tempting. You have to remember that a World War by today's standards would go very differently from 60 years ago - things were different, more dire, and definitely more desperate. There are geneva convention laws now, and things are different. Not that any of that matters. A World War in the 21st century would involve bombs that would put the ones used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to shame, with casualties that we could only dream of. | ||
|
XCetron
5226 Posts
On November 04 2008 03:20 Zoler wrote: Get this: no one thinks its cool because someone has a lots of bombs. USA is so sad to brag about their guns and weapons all the time. Disgusting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE whats the unrelated vid for? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 5431Shuttle  1612Mini 736BeSt 721Soulkey 360Soma 348EffOrt 333Stork 304Larva 223Mong  152[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing1642 Liquid`RaSZi1539 FrodaN803 B2W.Neo640 Beastyqt635 ceh9450 Hui .160 crisheroes154 ArmadaUGS109 ToD83 Livibee82 QueenE77 Mew2King49 KnowMe47 Trikslyr35 |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Shinee
Action vs Shine
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Paralyze
Jaedong vs Speed
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
