Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You're right in the sense that thousands of civilians die in every war. Indeed, Robert McNamara has gone on record as saying that the bombs dropped on Japan during WWII were chosen to cause the maximum amount of civilian casualties with the least amount of effort. Nice work if you can get it...
correct me if im wrong, but didnt they bomb those two places so they wouldnt get too many civilian casualties? Otherwise they would have bombed tokyo
Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
correct me if im wrong, but didnt they bomb those two places so they wouldnt get too many civilian casualties? Otherwise they would have bombed tokyo
Yeah, you're wrong on many counts. Firstly, Tokyo was firebombed. Secondly, it was chosen because it was very densely populated and made mostly of wood, so it was decided that if a firestorm was started it could kill some one hundred thousand people with no difficulty. McNamara has gone on record quoting General Curtis LeMay, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."
Originally posted by Grimm22
You are aware the casualties would have been around 20 million or more if we had invaded Japan by ground 😐
Oh, how honorable! The US dropped a couple of atomic bombs and countless fire-bombs because they were trying to keep the number of deaths down!
AHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Keep saying stuff. You're 'funny'.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Oh, how honorable! The US dropped a couple of atomic bombs and countless fire-bombs because they were trying to keep the number of deaths down!
Nobody said it's honorable. You need to look at it in practical terms. Say you're a general (or a president), and your country has been in a total war for several years, and you want to end it with a sound victory. You wanna preserve as many lives of your soldiers as you can, so what sounds like a better option; losing several million more of your troops, or soundly defeating the enemy in one swoop? Of course, it would be the latter.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/28/D8LM8PHG0.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242805,00.html
On a related subject...Babies being put in the oven? Sometimes I think there is no hope for humankind
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.Which part of its definition does not relate?
I like it, no more use of the word war, it's genocide.
That sticks better with writers and those looking for sympathy from the masses (that are left anyway.)
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo\
genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.Which part of its definition does not relate?
war on terror: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation because they hate freedom.
hehe
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.Which part of its definition does not relate?
Genocide is the systematic attempt to wipe out an entire group (ie: the Holocaust). The atomic bombings were not that. We were at war with Japan, and the fact that that particular nation happens to be very homogenous doesn't make it "genocide".