View Single Post
Old 09-01-2006, 05:13 PM   #68
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
No one seems to have addressed my post asking if an Iranian attack on NYC would be justified under the same circumstances as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It's because they're completely different situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Right, because our enemies were defeated. We didn't have to continue acting as fanatics.
If we became like the Japanese, we would've conquered a weakened world. The Japanese would have done that, but we did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
But setting up our own concentration camps and then nuking their civilians does not seem like a very civilized thing to me. Or am I just a crazy fool.
I have to agree that the concentration camps were not the best decision we made. Very, very few of the interned people were spies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
The "shock and awe" on Saddam's regime seemed to work to get the Iraqi military to - for the most part - lay down their arms and surrender. Why? Because they were a weak force that didn't stand a chance. Even though they're crazy totalitarians, they seemed to surrender quite promptly. Didn't even have to nuke all of Baghdad.
Different country, time, and situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Ask Eisenhower if Japan was going to surrender.
I'd love to travel to his grave someday, but I doubt his corpse could answer my question. But as a fully-qualified general in the U.S. army, I'm sure he'd see the logic behind my argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
I'm not going to defend firebombing.
Because it killed civilians? Should we have even bombed Japan's factories and military bases at all, pray tell?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
But at least with firebombing it doesn't leave the fallout that destroys the environment and kills thousands of people later from cancer.
Dropping bombs that explode in fiery blasts is not a good thing for the evironment, and I imagine it wounded and deformed more than a few people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Sounds like the very same justification that Israel used to slaughter the citizens of Lebanon. "Oh we're not targetting the people of Lebanon, just where Hezbollah hides their weapons. It just happens to be that their weapons are under the beds of children."
I agree with Israel's justification for what they're doing in Lebanon. But that is a completely different topic, and similar enough to this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Blaming the victim. So sick of it.
And I'm getting sick of you drawing ridiculous conclusions from my statements out of thin air. Nowhere have I said it was the fault of the people who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Less effectively? So actually targetting their military instead of their civilians (a war crime) would not hurt their military as much?
The fire bombings targetted the military. No idiot would be stupid enough to waste effort attacking the civilians instead of the military. Such acts help far less than destroying factories and military bases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Because if terrorism is easier, quicker, and cheaper than fighting a war, because your enemy is so fanatical that it would not back down any other way, then it is justified.
If the alternative kills more people and takes more time and money, I don't see why not. I thought someone with humanitarian views such as yourself would choose the option that kills less people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Guess what, that's what Mr. bin Laden thought when he ordered the 9/11 attacks.
Please, feel free to illuminate me as to how Osama was trying to cripple our ability to fight in wars.


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