Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/8/2004 5:27:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 5:28:49 PM EST by 1776]
What Has Changed In The Last 50 Years Of Warfare That We (humans) Can No Longer kill women and children in time of war? We did it countless times in WWII. It seemed ok then. It was ok to defend ourselfs in that manner but not for others? Why cant chechens do it now? What has changed? I wonder if the rest of the world felt as we do now about the russian children as when we did the same/similar thing in germany and japan.

I dont condone the killing of children, just wondering if we are hypocrites.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:31:46 PM EST
Deliberately targeting civilians violates the Geneva Convention, which we signed.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:32:53 PM EST
The tools of war have improved to where it's not necessary to target large populations in order to get results. One only has to look at GWII to know that.

You go after the bad guys ability to wage war. To do that previously required taking out large areas of production. Now you can target a specific area of a buliding and not have to level the entire city.

Killing non-combatants is counterproductive (execpt to the MuslimMaggots that think anything that breaths is fair game).
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:32:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 5:33:13 PM EST by ar50troll]
But what about the brianwashed kids in the sandbox with their AK's?
Not trying to get a lock here, but ANYONE who points a weapon at our troops is a viable military target.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:33:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Deliberately targeting civilians violates the Geneva Convention, which we signed.




In 1882.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:35:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By Airwolf:
The tools of war have improved to where it's not necessary to target large populations in order to get results. One only has to look at GWII to know that.




The tools are VERY old for the chechens. Does that change anything?
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:36:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By ar50troll:
But what about the brianwashed kids in the sandbox with their AK's?
Not trying to get a lock here, but ANYONE who points a weapon at our troops is a viable military target.



If they are engaged in combat, all bets are off.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:38:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By ar50troll:
But what about the brianwashed kids in the sandbox with their AK's?
Not trying to get a lock here, but ANYONE who points a weapon at our troops is a viable military target.



True enough, Anyone that points a weapon at a GI is a legit target.

but the point is that with smart weapons we don't have to level entire city blocks just to clobber 1 factory.


Take this from a WW2 bombardier's kid. Dad carried guilt over a hung-up bomb until he saw a documentary in the 60s that let him know that HE wasn't the guy that dropped a 500 pound blockbuster on an orphanage.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:38:58 PM EST
In my experience, if you pull a trigger, you better have an explanation ready that meets the unit's standards.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:40:00 PM EST
Hell, we can't even shoot at a building if the islamic cockroaches proclaim it a "holy site".
Nothing like allowing your enemy to dictate the terms of your attack.
Pretty soon every other mud hut will been called a holy site.
WWPD !!!
What would Patton do ?
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:41:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By piccolo:

Originally Posted By ar50troll:
But what about the brianwashed kids in the sandbox with their AK's?
Not trying to get a lock here, but ANYONE who points a weapon at our troops is a viable military target.



True enough, Anyone that points a weapon at a GI is a legit target.

but the point is that with smart weapons we don't have to level entire city blocks just to clobber 1 factory.


Take this from a WW2 bombardier's kid. Dad carried guilt over a hung-up bomb until he saw a documentary in the 60s that let him know that HE wasn't the guy that dropped a 500 pound blockbuster on an orphanage.



The history channel had their show about the B-52 on the other day. A B-52 pilot summed it up pretty good. A smart bomb is nice. A smart bomb will go right to the bad guys door. But carpet bombing makes the bad guys give up.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:44:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Hell, we can't even shoot at a building if the islamic cockroaches proclaim it a "holy site".
Nothing like allowing your enemy to dictate the terms of your attack.
Pretty soon every other mud hut will been called a holy site.
WWPD !!!
What would Patton do ?



Patton would go through them like crap through a goose!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:48:27 PM EST
I would guess that the Ruskies will not be wearing kid gloves.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:49:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
What would Patton do ?



Correction:

What would Sherman do?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:07:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By PONY_DRIVER:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Hell, we can't even shoot at a building if the islamic cockroaches proclaim it a "holy site".
Nothing like allowing your enemy to dictate the terms of your attack.
Pretty soon every other mud hut will been called a holy site.
WWPD !!!
What would Patton do ?



Patton would go through them like crap through a goose!



Thats's my point.
Don't misunderstand, I'm in no way saying we don't have some capable military leaders, it's the political leaders who won't allow them to wage war as needed.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:37:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:
What Has Changed In The Last 50 Years Of Warfare That We (humans) Can No Longer kill women and children in time of war? We did it countless times in WWII. It seemed ok then. It was ok to defend ourselfs in that manner but not for others? Why cant chechens do it now? What has changed? I wonder if the rest of the world felt as we do now about the russian children as when we did the same/similar thing in germany and japan.

I dont condone the killing of children, just wondering if we are hypocrites.



Huge difference between Chechen terrorists taking a school full of children (who are pantently non-combatants) and targeting them solely for destruction to literally scare the bejeezus out of the population so that they force the government to change it's policies and accidentally killing people who happen to get stuck or maneuvered into the line of fire.

Just because war is a hideously brutal and even evil undertaking doesn't mean you cannot TRY to approach it as morally and ethically as is practical. One of the big differentiators between the US and Britain, and pretty much the rest of the world, is that the US and Britain will spend a fortune to build weapons that allow us to precisely target our enemies and minimize damage to everything around the target. We bend over backwards to avoid killing or injuring innocent people, because we believe that war is bad enough without killing people and causing misery that you don't have to.

The Chechen terrorists on the other hand, have long since prostituted away any legitimacy they may have had through the use of barbaric tactics.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:40:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By ar50troll:
But what about the brianwashed kids in the sandbox with their AK's?
Not trying to get a lock here, but ANYONE who points a weapon at our troops is a viable military target.



I don't think any of those Russian kids had AKs. Look in WWII it was not possible to limit the civilian damage when trying to destroy war fighting ability. If we were to target a school in Iran to bomb as a target, I would find that wrong. If there were a nuke site right next to it and it got hit in the strike, I would not like it, but thats the breaks. The targeting is the issue, not the ocasional mistake.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:47:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:

Originally Posted By Airwolf:
The tools of war have improved to where it's not necessary to target large populations in order to get results. One only has to look at GWII to know that.




The tools are VERY old for the chechens. Does that change anything?



No. Carpet bombing half a city to destroy one factory is completely different from deliberately targeting a school so that you can murder as many children as possible.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:47:58 AM EST
The only thing that changes in warfare is terrain.....and men. Let's face it, the majority of the people in this country are not tough like people were in WWII. Back then, people had to be tough to survive. Most of the people alive during the war had lived through the Great Depression. They worked like brutes to survive. They didn't have all the modern day niceties we have now.

Our soldiers and their commanders are up for it. But most of the politicians have their hands tied by a good % of the population who are a bunch of pansies. As a result, we can't fight like we once could. So in essence, people today just aren't tough like people in this nation use to be.

-CH
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:02:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:

Originally Posted By PONY_DRIVER:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Hell, we can't even shoot at a building if the islamic cockroaches proclaim it a "holy site".
Nothing like allowing your enemy to dictate the terms of your attack.
Pretty soon every other mud hut will been called a holy site.
WWPD !!!
What would Patton do ?



Patton would go through them like crap through a goose!



Thats's my point.
Don't misunderstand, I'm in no way saying we don't have some capable military leaders, it's the political leaders who won't allow them to wage war as needed.



I'm sorry, but I don't go in much for the hero worship of Patton.

Patton was a one dimensional general with piss poor impulse control. Yes he was decisive, yes he was tactically effective, but he pissed off just about everyone around him in record time and he couldn't really handle one of the most important parts of being a general (getting other people to cooperate with you). He was a perfect, "Break glass in case of war" soldier, ideally suited for total war, but most military situations are not Total War. Patton also began to rapidly fall behind the times toward the end of his career. Applying Patton's tactical thought process to modern war and modern weapons would be a BAD idea. Even if the bad guys are still fighting with WWI or WWII technologies, we are not, and that changes things quite a bit. So asking "What would Patton do?" is a ridiculous premise for an argument, because had Patton lived and continued to evolve as an officer, what Patton would have done in 1945 would not be the same as what Patton would do now.

Another reason why you can't just bulldoze Fallujah has to do with how the world has changed between 1945 and 2004. In 1945, few people even knew where Fallujah was, and if you didn't speak Arabic and worship in a Mosque, you didn't give a flying fig either. If the #rd Army crushed Fallujah, or even the entirety of iraq into the dust and mud, no one would have given a damn. Now, most people older than 16 know at least what country Fallujah is in and may even be able to find it on a globe. The world got smaller in the past 60 years. I have friends who were born and raised in Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, Australian, The Netherlands, Norway, etc. The people living in faraway lands are no longer nameless faceless theoretical people anymore and that has a big impact on how foreign policy must be conducted, and yes, even foreign policy by violent means. When images of the bodies of women and children can hit the TV screens all around the world mere seconds after their deaths occur, there is no way to clean things up for the folks back home. During WWII the news images coming back from the various war fronts was heavily vetted and censored to package the war and prevent the erosion of support on the home fronts. We can't do that any longer both through our conscious choices as a society and because the technology of new reporting has changed so much.

It doesn't take all that much to erode the confidence of the people in the conduct of war anymore. One group of idiots in a prison in Abu Graib did more damage to their government and cause than had those prisoners never been taken in the first place, all because they gave in to the same base instincts proposed above. We are the ONLY superpower left in the world and the subject of intense jealously. Everything we do is scrutinized to the nth degree and used against us, so it is important that we avoid making more trouble for ourselves than is absolutely necessary.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:13:12 AM EST
I bet this kind of thing never even enters our enemy's minds. Its definately what seperates us from those savages, but it sure makes it tougher on the guys on the front line. Just another of the MANY reasons I have nothing but total admiration for our guys in the Military.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:24:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:

Originally Posted By PONY_DRIVER:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Hell, we can't even shoot at a building if the islamic cockroaches proclaim it a "holy site".
Nothing like allowing your enemy to dictate the terms of your attack.
Pretty soon every other mud hut will been called a holy site.
WWPD !!!
What would Patton do ?



Patton would go through them like crap through a goose!



Thats's my point.
Don't misunderstand, I'm in no way saying we don't have some capable military leaders, it's the political leaders who won't allow them to wage war as needed.



This is what confuses me.
The politicians now are from the Vietnam era. They fought with one hand tied behind their backs and if anyone should know not to repeat it it should be them.

I think if you are going to do it, do it all the way. If they hide in a mosque, destroy it, if it really matters to the next group, they wont hide there.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:23:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By ar50troll:
But what about the brianwashed kids in the sandbox with their AK's?
Not trying to get a lock here, but ANYONE who points a weapon at our troops is a viable military target.



I had this arguement with a co-worker.
Once that woman or child picks up a weapon and points it at our troops, they are no longer a non-combatant. Kids and women working as spotters for gunmen are combatants! The kid walking up to toss a grenade at you is a combatant! It is NOT our fault if the enemy uses children as pawns. It just proves how low the enemy is to place their children in harms way rather than trying to protect them from harm. Suicide bombers are proof of the fact that these people aren't too bright! If it's such an honor to be a suicide bomber, let the top dogs lead by example!!!! Any volunteers??? Yeah, I thought not!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:25:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:
What Has Changed In The Last 50 Years Of Warfare That We (humans) Can No Longer kill women and children in time of war?



It's easy. You just don't lead 'em as much.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:26:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By ar50troll:
But what about the brianwashed kids in the sandbox with their AK's?
Not trying to get a lock here, but ANYONE who points a weapon at our troops is a viable military target.



I don't think any of those Russian kids had AKs. Look in WWII it was not possible to limit the civilian damage when trying to destroy war fighting ability. If we were to target a school in Iran to bomb as a target, I would find that wrong. If there were a nuke site right next to it and it got hit in the strike, I would not like it, but thats the breaks. The targeting is the issue, not the ocasional mistake.


That's a retard statement that has nothing to do with what we are talking about...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:32:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:
What Has Changed In The Last 50 Years Of Warfare That We (humans) Can No Longer kill women and children in time of war?



We have become a nation of girlie-men. I do not advocate killing non-coms, as it serves no military purpose, but if you are going to assemble a bunch of non-coms at a military target, or put military targets in non-com neighborhoods, then their death is not our problem.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:32:53 PM EST
It seems you guys are dancing around the issue. Why all the outrage when the chechens kill children when we did it many times worse. Dont you think the rest of the world or at least the bombed countries comdemmed us for killing innocent children much the way we are condemming chechens? I dont see any of you bitching about the atomic bombs dropped on japan or the carpet bombing of germany. If fact most if not all of you have expressed a willingness to "NUKE'em ALL" regarding our foes. Do you realise that NUKE'em ALL includes children? If indeed you have said in the past "NUKE'em ALL" the atleast stand for what you beleive in and say it was a valid target.

IMO we are being a bunch of hypocrites. You cant have it both ways. War is extream destruction.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:34:39 PM EST
"How can you kill women and children?"
"Just don't lead them as much"
-FMJ
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:08:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Hell, we can't even shoot at a building if the islamic cockroaches proclaim it a "holy site".
Nothing like allowing your enemy to dictate the terms of your attack.
Pretty soon every other mud hut will been called a holy site.
WWPD !!!
What would Patton do ?



OK, let's turn this around. These TBKMFTCBN siezed one of the MOST HOLY sites in Christiandom. The Church of the Nativity built over the site that Jesus was born. So, did the Christians piss and moan, kick and groan to no end about the desecration of that site with 'INFIDELS' inside of it? Can you imagine the shit storm if the US had touch this 'holy site' in Najaf?

So, WTF we care about one of the places that is on the 100 'holy sites' for this particular sect?

Just tired of dealing with these TBKMFTCBN,

wganz




Terrorist Baby Killers That Cannot Be Named
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:06:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 6:18:15 PM EST by thompsondd]
They DELIBERATELY targeted children. For two days, these children, INNOCENT KIDS, were staved and denied water, mentally tormented, threatened with their lives, witnessed numerous executions (and alledged rapes), etc. Then they were shot in the backs, blown up, etc as they ran for their lives. Babies were bayonetted babies.

Don't make it out to sound like an accident.

Why are you defending this act so passionately? WTF? How can you even twist this enough to even for a moment to think that we have done something similar?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:26:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By thompsondd:

Don't make it out to sound like an accident.

Why are you defending this act so passionately? WTF? How can you even twist this enough to even for a moment to think that we have done something similar?




Did you fail reading class in school?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:28:29 PM EST
What do you suggest 76?, we carpet bomb with bacon bits ?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:35:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Hell, we can't even shoot at a building if the islamic cockroaches proclaim it a "holy site".
Nothing like allowing your enemy to dictate the terms of your attack.
Pretty soon every other mud hut will been called a holy site.
WWPD !!!
What would Patton do ?



Yeah, no kidding. The media doesn't help either when they ad "The Holy City of - " to the beginning of every god forsaken muslim town in that sorry excuse for a human habitat.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:37:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 6:37:55 PM EST by ar50troll]

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
What do you suggest 76?, we carpet bomb with bacon bits ?



How about lead Korans.
NOTE MODS: Lead Kornas would only leave bruises. I am not advocating genocide...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:42:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
What do you suggest 76?, we carpet bomb with bacon bits ?



I am suggesting that war is war and you do WHATEVER it takes to win. If you are going to engage in warfare then you do whatever it takes to win especialy if you are on a side that has little to no hope of winning. There are no right and wrong killings, there are no rules in a fight. We did MUCH worse on a scale ONE THOUSAND TIMES more. The chechens feel that this is an effective acceptable weapon as they have a very limited ability to fight effectivly against a modern foe.


I am simply pointing out that we are being hypocrites. We did a very similar thing not so long ago.
I wish it were different.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:43:49 PM EST
Ok...Here we go again.

Gentlemen...don't feed the
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:48:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 6:50:34 PM EST by 1776]

Originally Posted By thompsondd:
They DELIBERATELY targeted children.

Don't make it out to sound like an accident.

Why are you defending this act so passionately? WTF? How can you even twist this enough to even for a moment to think that we have done something similar?





Do you think we bombed japan with nukes TWICE because we were trying to take out a bomb making factory? We knew damm well there were HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent women and children that would be instantly blown to smitherines(sp?). Dont try to sugar coat it. We did it to kill as many as we could (combatants or not) to bring them to their knees. It was VERY clear what would happen when we dropped the bombs over HUGE cities. Specific military targets were not a concern.

BTW if I was in charge back then I would have done it the exact same way. My point is that war is war and you do what ever it takes to win. Dont be a hypocrite whren someone else does it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:50:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 6:51:40 PM EST by the]

Originally Posted By 1776:

I am simply pointing out that we are being hypocrites. We did a very similar thing not so long ago.
I wish it were different.



When have we exclusively targeted innocent children, specifically to cause terror?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:51:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 6:52:33 PM EST by 1776]

Originally Posted By the:

Originally Posted By 1776:

I am simply pointing out that we are being hypocrites. We did a very similar thing not so long ago.
I wish it were different.



When have we deliberately targeted innocent children, specifically to cause terror?




Uh...............Japan? Are you older than 25? Surely they taught you about WWII in school.

Read the post right above yours
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:52:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By icemanat95:

Originally Posted By 1776:
What Has Changed In The Last 50 Years Of Warfare That We (humans) Can No Longer kill women and children in time of war? We did it countless times in WWII. It seemed ok then. It was ok to defend ourselfs in that manner but not for others? Why cant chechens do it now? What has changed? I wonder if the rest of the world felt as we do now about the russian children as when we did the same/similar thing in germany and japan.

I dont condone the killing of children, just wondering if we are hypocrites.



Huge difference between Chechen terrorists taking a school full of children (who are pantently non-combatants) and targeting them solely for destruction to literally scare the bejeezus out of the population so that they force the government to change it's policies and accidentally killing people who happen to get stuck or maneuvered into the line of fire.

Just because war is a hideously brutal and even evil undertaking doesn't mean you cannot TRY to approach it as morally and ethically as is practical. One of the big differentiators between the US and Britain, and pretty much the rest of the world, is that the US and Britain will spend a fortune to build weapons that allow us to precisely target our enemies and minimize damage to everything around the target. We bend over backwards to avoid killing or injuring innocent people, because we believe that war is bad enough without killing people and causing misery that you don't have to.

The Chechen terrorists on the other hand, have long since prostituted away any legitimacy they may have had through the use of barbaric tactics.



This is absolutely correct.

They TARGETED a SCHOOL that had children in it. They didn't "accidently" shoot it up or bomb it. It was 100% deliberate.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:52:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
What do you suggest 76?, we carpet bomb with bacon bits ?



I am suggesting that war is war and you do WHATEVER it takes to win. If you are going to engage in warfare then you do whatever it takes to win especialy if you are on a side that has little to no hope of winning. There are no right and wrong killings, there are no rules in a fight. We did MUCH worse on a scale ONE THOUSAND TIMES more. The chechens feel that this is an effective acceptable weapon as they have a very limited ability to fight effectivly against a modern foe.


I am simply pointing out that we are being hypocrites. We did a very similar thing not so long ago.
I wish it were different.



They are not conducting war, they are conducting terrorism.

We did nothing of the sort, we bombed legitimate military targets during WWll that were located in the middle of cities.

Winning does NOT include taking children hostage and raping, beating and murdering them.

I thought this had been beaten to death the other day.

I agree, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:54:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By sae057:
[

They TARGETED a SCHOOL that had children in it. They didn't "accidently" shoot it up or bomb it. It was 100% deliberate.



As was the bombing of japan with NUKES.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:56:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 7:01:52 PM EST by sae057]

Originally Posted By 1776:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
What do you suggest 76?, we carpet bomb with bacon bits ?



I am suggesting that war is war and you do WHATEVER it takes to win. If you are going to engage in warfare then you do whatever it takes to win especialy if you are on a side that has little to no hope of winning. There are no right and wrong killings, there are no rules in a fight. We did MUCH worse on a scale ONE THOUSAND TIMES more. The chechens feel that this is an effective acceptable weapon as they have a very limited ability to fight effectivly against a modern foe.


I am simply pointing out that we are being hypocrites. We did a very similar thing not so long ago.
I wish it were different.



Just because the Chechans think that it was a valid tactic to use, doesn't mean that it was.

If you thought that a "valid" tactic to get the NFA act repealed was to go massacre a school full of children, that doesn't mean that is IS a valid tactic.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:57:28 PM EST
Hey 76, you got a message down in the pit. Go see what it says, if you dare.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:00:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By icemanat95:


Huge difference between Chechen terrorists taking a school full of children (who are pantently non-combatants) and targeting them solely for destruction to literally scare the bejeezus out of the population so that they force the government to change it's policies and accidentally killing people who happen to get stuck or maneuvered into the line of fire.



So let me get this right. When we bombed japan the innocents that were vaporised were people who happen to accidentally get stuck or maneuvered into the line of fire?

War is extreem violence and humans at there worst. Dont be suprised when these things happen during those times. We did it and they do it. Dont be a hypocrite is all. That doesent mean you have to like it.
I dont. But I realise the reality of it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:00:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:

Originally Posted By sae057:
[

They TARGETED a SCHOOL that had children in it. They didn't "accidently" shoot it up or bomb it. It was 100% deliberate.



As was the bombing of japan with NUKES.



Our leaders forcasted about 1 MILLION U.S. casualties if we were to invade the Japanese homeland. I can almost guarantee you that the powers that be that decided to drop the two bombs had already exhaused/thought over any other tactic that wouldn't cost another MILLION American lives.

AND, we really didn't TARGET the civilian population, we targeted war factories. The civilian causualties were because of the size of the bomb and the fact that they were located in the city.

And this is after over 30 MILLION people had already died in WWII. (Could be more, but I am not sure).

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:02:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Hey 76, you got a message down in the pit. Go see what it says, if you dare.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I





I dont get over there much. Be a man and either post it or IM me.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:03:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:
It seems you guys are dancing around the issue. Why all the outrage when the chechens kill children when we did it many times worse. .

when's the last time we murdered a bunch of kids in a school?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:04:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 7:07:37 PM EST by sterling18]

Originally Posted By PONY_DRIVER:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Hell, we can't even shoot at a building if the islamic cockroaches proclaim it a "holy site".
Nothing like allowing your enemy to dictate the terms of your attack.
Pretty soon every other mud hut will been called a holy site.
WWPD !!!
What would Patton do ?



Patton would go through them like crap through a goose!



Not quite. IKE would have leashed Georgie Boy before that would have happened. If Patton has his way, I think the war would have ended sooner, and the USSR would not have extended as far as it did. Hell, Third Army would have been in Moscow in 12 months and 10th Army AirForce would have dropped some nukes, if we had anymore along the way in support.

Oh by the way. 1776, you are a
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:04:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 7:04:46 PM EST by MrClean4Hire]

Originally Posted By 1776:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Hey 76, you got a message down in the pit. Go see what it says, if you dare.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I





I dont get over there much. Be a man and either post it or IM me.




You be a man and get down there ,we have a special place there for . I know you have seen this ,so if you don't go we all know that your just scared.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:05:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By sae057:

Our leaders forcasted about 1 MILLION U.S. casualties if we were to invade the Japanese homeland. I can almost guarantee you that the powers that be that decided to drop the two bombs had already exhaused/thought over any other tactic that wouldn't cost another MILLION American lives.

AND, we really didn't TARGET the civilian population, we targeted war factories. The civilian causualties were because of the size of the bomb and the fact that they were located in the city.

And this is after over 30 MILLION people had already died in WWII. (Could be more, but I am not sure).




The fact remains that we knew it and did it anyway and we would do it again faced with the same situation and circustances. As we should.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top