Who thinks nazi's are awesome?

[pippin the mighty]

War is going to become more frequent in the future. Countries will run out of fuel, and spread there wings further into enimie territory. When the enimie finds out, they start the war.

This was then, won't stop until one country either

A). Dies off
B). Gives up

Or

C). Kills thr enimie

[kell]

come on windy the targeting of civilians? thats a war crime. pressing a button or walking up and shooting them all one by one gives the same result.
the end doesn't alway justify the means

[windhound]

Nope Kell
Reread my post- "The US had to invade Japan.  It was calculated that the casualties of a brute force invasion would be horrific on both sides."

Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well, who were able to accurately deduce the Allied invasion plans and adjust their defensive plans accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties,[1] and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

I think less than 100,000 civilian deaths to prevent "tens of millions" of Japanese casualties is acceptable, especially considering it meant that millions of Allied troops didn't have to die.

I think its unfortunate that civilian targets had to be used, but no other target would have gotten the response we needed.  The attacks ended the war. 
Remember.  The US had not officially entered into WWII until Japan Bombed Pearl Harbor!
AND we helped rebuild Japan after the war.
It might be viewed differently if not, but we helped clean up their country after they lost, and they were the aggressors

[Sharptooh]

I do  1 (8.3% )

Ok who chose this  >:(

[kell]

It doesn't matter what might have or would have happened, what matters is the murdering of 100,000 civilians is a war crime no way around that

[windhound]

There's plenty of ways around it Kell
It was a bloody war, in both uses of the word bloody

The Japanese culture, from what I know of it (not much) is one of Never Surrender.  The kamikaze pilots flew with enough gas to get them one way and drove their planes into targets.  It was an honor to die for one's country.

The civilians would not have given in peacefully, they'd have armed themselves and fought against the Allied forces...  Thus why the estimated death toll was so high for Operation Downfall.  At what point is a civilian no longer a civilian? 

Now, two clarification points...
-Are you seriously comparing the selective annihilation of a group of people over many years to the act of dropping a single bomb on a city selected neigh at random? (weather conditions being the main determining factor)
-While remembering this is a war, are you saying that you'd rather millions of Allied troops and tens of millions of Japanese Civilians die rather than taking out two cities with single blows?

Also...  Another mitigating factor comes to mind... 

At the same time, newspapers and leaflets in the Japanese language were printed on Saipan. From there, Air Force B-29s flying at 20,000 feet dropped 500-pound M-16 fire bomb containers converted into leaflet casings. These opened at 4,000 feet to deploy millions of leaflets, effectively covering a whole Japanese city with information. In just the last three months of formal psychological warfare, OWIproduced and deployed over 63 million leaflets informing the Japanese people of the true status of the war and providing advance warning to35 cities targeted for destruction.3 Postwar surveys showed that the Japanese people trusted the accuracy of the leaflets and many residents of the targeted cities prepared immediately to leave their homes.4 The Japanese government regarded the leaflets with such concern that it ordered the arrest of those who kept or even read the leaflets and did not turn them in to their local police stations. Outside Japan, leaflets promoting the surrender of individual Japanese soldiers and civilians were dropped near cave and tunnel hideouts on islands that had been captured by the Allies.5

- https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html
They were warned.
The government punished those who kept or read the letters.  Great government.
Now, granted, they couldn't have known http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nagasaki_1945_-_Before_and_after_%28adjusted%29.jpg would happen
But warnings were given, in their own language, and many took the warning seriously
Instead of dropping bombs a few flights were dedicated to informing the civilian population of what was to come
Still a bad act to intentionally target civilian population centers, but the end truly justified the means in my humble opinion

[wolf bite]

(Dislikes subject line of topic)

Long ago on this forum I had to deal with some anti race postings. I really don't want to go in that direction. The Mods have permission if the subjects starts going in the wrong direction to move to ultra modified discussion. If it goes real far in the wrong direction, to close topic. Please all be careful in your posts.

However our members have been wise enough to keep the discussion as to the benefits of war or the forgiveness of past questionable moral actions, and not the underlining reasons for that war. Thanks.


Wolf Bite
(Admin Duites)


As far as my input whether it is ok to befriend someone that has had "uncomfortable" views or actions in the past (as I try to steer the topic): Holding everyone to a person's own moral views would leave us very lonely and with no friends.  Somethings are forgivable and some people have gone to great lengths to correct their own wrongs and deserve the forgiveness based on their current actions. However if the interacting with a person involves the controversial and moral behavior, then a better choice of friends are required.

I have had friends, acquaintances, and employees that have done time for actions I find deplorable. However they had all resented their actions that took them to jail.  On the other hand, I have had friends that started getting into questionable moral actions and I disassociated with them.


Wolf Bite

[Firetooth]

I first thought this racist when I saw it. Then I saw it had begun as the man had moleasted child question should you not like them cause of that.
Windy and kell have good points. America probarbly saved lives, but killing all those defenceless people is genocide, whether they're your enemies of not.

[pippin the mighty]

I think that if you see anyone remotely suspicous, you shoulds stear well away from them.

[Firetooth]

Yes, good point.
Wars are coming more frequent for more reasons:

Idiots who think that somewhere in the bible it says you should kill others then you'll be divine when it actually says "thou shalt not kill" as one of the ten commandments.
Lack of resocuses
Big-headed people who want to dominate the world
hunger
people who only care about power (the idiot who runs zimbabwae)

[pippin the mighty]

Zimbabwe are a disfunctioning country, half of that country go without food and water, its economics is terrible.

Im 90% sure that this is right, though it might be another country im thinking of.

[Firetooth]

No, it is Zimbabwae, there president cares not for it's people and only of staying in power.

[Shade]

Idiots who think that somewhere in the bible it says you should kill others then you'll be divine when it actually says "thou shalt not kill" as one of the ten commandments.

The commandment is actually 'You shall not murder', doesn't seem like a big difference, but it is, killing in self defense, killing an enemy in a war, and other such things do not break the commandment, as they are not murder. In fact, if I recall correctly, In the book of Numbers it's stated that the punishment for a murderer is death, if they are not allowed to kill at all, how do they kill the murderer? I don't know about this 'kill and then you'll be divine' thing, never heard of it before, but it is not wrong to kill if it's necesary to defend yourself

[Shadow]

The commandment is actually 'You shall not murder', doesn't seem like a big difference, but it is, killing in self defense, killing an enemy in a war, and other such things

Killing another in a war is not murder? I say it is, for the aggressor. Many religious wars have been started in which the aggressor has been backed by the church and the bible (and whatever the equivalent is in any number of other religions), but how is that any less murder than killing someone in cold blood?

I smell hypocrisy.

[pippin the mighty]

I smell hypocrisy.

Sorry...