Gén0CýDé He helped play a role in defeating communism[/QUOTE] Kinda hard to defeat something that has yet to exist. Communism is a great idea (key word in there, "Commune"), it's the execution that's always been the problem. [quote=Mihail]Or that when america nuked those japanese cities they knew what was going to happen? Of course they did but they saw it was acceptable. Something I don't find to be acceptable.
The alternative was to invade Japan. What do you think that would have been like? Unlike Europe, there was only one place in Japan that would have made for a feasible invasion point, and the Japanese knew this. They were training civilians to fight us: women were being taught how to best use sharpened bamboo rods (we learned how deadly those things were in Vietnam) and children were being taught to dive under tanks and detonate explosives they were carrying. American Officials were predicting, at best, a 50% casualty rate (even Operation Overlord never got that high). We weren't going to fight just the Japanese military, we were going to face the entire Japanese populace. And don't forget the deaths that came from the two atom bombs only accounted for about 2% of Japanese deaths on their island. Our fire-bombs did a whole lot mroe damage.
I'm not trying to say if the bombing was right or not. My point is of course civilian casualties were acceptable.
Either way, there was going to be civilian casualties. The question was, which choice resulted in fewer casualties? Besides, can you name a large, or even medium-scale conflict using explosives (like cannons, black powerder, guns etc) where there were no civilian casualties? There are always civilian deaths in war. The only difference you can make, albight a week one, is whether or not you are specifically targeting civilians. If you want to completely avoid civilian casualties, you have to simply do away with war. bny, H_A and Dan, before you reply with something like "Amazing revalation!" STFU.
Thats my point if you can't avoid all civilian casualties then don't bother having a war at all.
But then my family goes hungry. :(
About nick berg I said nothing bad about him all I said is that i wonder why people are so upset because people die everyday infact they dead in worst ways then he did. Did I say he got what he deserved? No. now what did I say? I said that it was sad that he died. And no I never said the americans did any thing worst. Those are your words not mine so it makes me wonder if your correct or not in saying so.
I say this is alot worst. yet no one say "KILL THE FUCKERS! SLAUGHTER THEM ALL!!!!" to the american soldiers.
backs up what I said before... And no, you're very very very wrong if you think our army (which is what I obviously meant :rolleyes:) purposely kills civilians. We do our best to protect them, it's the enemy that uses them to hide behind.. And if we hadn't nuke japan there would have been WAY more casualties on BOTH sides, and most likely even more civilian casualties.. But...I'll drop it now, I'm tired of this...:lookaround:
I did not say that though, Someone else said to kill all the fuckers. about the arabs. I was bringing up a point. There was alot of outrage about nick berg yet no one seems to care about what happen to the iraqis. And yes you should drop it because your out of steam.
Yeah I know what you were saying. But you also said "I think this is worse." to a car rushing a checkpoint.
No, I'm dropping it cuz I have + karma. :p
And it was worst. Are you denying it? the death of one man going into what he knew was a war zone or a family of women and children? So how was that anti-American? Because I don't hate arabs? Is that what Makes me Anti-American? if thats how it is then 90% of the world are anti-american.