View Single Post
Old 09-01-2006, 02:19 PM   #63
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Let's see... after Pearl Harbor, we rounded up all the evil Jap pigs into concentration camps happy ice cream parks, and then indiscriminately nuked two civilian cities, causing thousands of innocents to be killed liberated the Japanese people from a fanatical regime. Ah! You're right. We didn't act like fanatics at all.
The concentration camps weren't entirely necessary, but that wasn't the point of my argument. You said to defeat fanatics we would become fanatics. Once the war ended, we did not try to conquer a severly weakened world, and instead helped it rebuild. That does not fit my definition of becoming like the Japanese ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Since when was Britain prepared to surrender at the time of the blitz?
Since when was that relevant? If the blitz didn't work on Britain, it wouldn't have worked on the Japanese. They proved to be far more fanatical to their cause than the British were, so that obviously wouldn't have worked.

The Japanese were not ready to surrender, otherwise they wouldn't have been preparing to send their children and seniors into the fighting, as LIAYD said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Sure, if they hadn't already surrendered by then.
During that long blackade it would be best to continue bombing their military structures and factories, correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Yeah civilians will die, but not in the numbers that they would if you just nuked the cities and disregarded the fact that you're targetting civilians (a war crime).
You are as incorrect as you can possibly get on that matter. Constant bombings can claim just as many, and even more lives than two atomic bombings. Look it up anywhere, and you'll see that more civilians were killed in the fire bombings of Japan than the atomic bombings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Because they aren't intentionally killing civilians in Iraq
And civilans were not intentionally killed in the atomic bombings. We were targeting the industrial capacity and strategic value of those cities, not the civilians, even though we knew they were there and would die. But did we also know that civilians would die when we used fire bombs on their cities? Yes. You've haven't seemed very opposed to that, despite the fact that there were deaths in those bominbgs.

How can you advocate a form of crippling their military less effectively while killing more civilians over a method that kills less civilians and damages their military just as much, and possibly more? The only difference is that the later took less time and money. Your opinion on that is as inconsistent as you can get.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,