If you wee alive in 1941....

[LuvRPgrl]

would you have supported the bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

Do you think the bombing of Brisbane has the same basic moral dilema?

If so, or not, why, and would you have bombed Brisbane as the US Military did?

All of these questions supposizes that you would have known, what you now currently know.

[Gaffer]

Yes I would. Also Dresden and Tokyo as well. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people that bother atomic bombs put together. They were the enemy and we were their enemy. You don't win a war by sorting through the enemy nation and determining that some are okay and should not be attacked. You destroy their war making capability and terrorize the population into surrendering. That's how you win a war and if you can't do that you better stay home.

[revelarts]

would you have supported the bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

Do you think the bombing of Brisbane has the same basic moral dilema?

If so, or not, why, and would you have bombed Brisbane as the US Military did?

All of these questions supposizes that you would have known, what you now currently know.

See I'm not sure what i "know" now.

I think that Japan was about to surrender. If so then No i would not.

I don't think Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were military targets.
If not i would not.

I don't see the point in targeting civilians in a war at all.
The military, the leaders and arms manufactures are the problem take them out and the war is over.
The Goal is to win the war, not kill everyone in the country.

[fj1200]

I think that Japan was about to surrender.

I don't think that's true. Besides based on the expected casualties, on both sides, wouldn't the bombing be considered the "humane" option?

[revelarts]

I don't think that's true. Besides based on the expected casualties, on both sides, wouldn't the bombing be considered the "humane" option?
If they weren't then maybe 1 nuke on a military target. then ask for surrender. no need for 2 bombs IMO and no need for more civilians.

[gabosaurus]

When did the American bomb Brisbane? I know WWII pretty well and I don't remember that happening. Why would American forces bomb a city in Australia?

I expected Gaffer's response since I know he enjoys death and suffering. But if you know WWII, the citizens of a country have nothing to do with whether it surrenders or not. Thus, the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden did nothing but kill a lot of innocent people.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic targets. The purpose was to prove to the Emperor that the U.S. had atomic weapons.
Contrary to popular belief, the Japanese were nowhere near surrender in August of 1945. Even after the second bomb at Nagasaki, the Japanese military rulers did not want to surrender. It was the Emperor himself who overruled them.
There has been all kinds of criticism of the two A-bombs dropped on Japan as unnecessary and inhumane, but few choose to remember what the alternative was. An invasion of Japan was projected to cost the lives of close to a million Americans and 20 million Japanese.

[Kathianne]

When did the American bomb Brisbane? I know WWII pretty well and I don't remember that happening. Why would American forces bomb a city in Australia?

I expected Gaffer's response since I know he enjoys death and suffering. But if you know WWII, the citizens of a country have nothing to do with whether it surrenders or not. Thus, the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden did nothing but kill a lot of innocent people.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic targets. The purpose was to prove to the Emperor that the U.S. had atomic weapons.
Contrary to popular belief, the Japanese were nowhere near surrender in August of 1945. Even after the second bomb at Nagasaki, the Japanese military rulers did not want to surrender. It was the Emperor himself who overruled them.
There has been all kinds of criticism of the two A-bombs dropped on Japan as unnecessary and inhumane, but few choose to remember what the alternative was. An invasion of Japan was projected to cost the lives of close to a million Americans and 20 million Japanese.

I never heard of the bombing of Brisbane either, so I looked it up. Couldn't find any reference to it, though did find something referred to as 'The Battle of Brisbane' from Australian sources. Seems it was basically a series of fights between American and Australian GI's due to the Americans being, "Over paid, over sexed, and over here." (similar incidents did happen in England too).
http://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/bob.htm After awhile the US and Aussie GI's got along again, in spite of at least one death and many injuries.

I knew why Nagasaki and Hiroshima were chosen, but figured a few might be more interested in the times than what they've been taught in schools. If so, here's something that would be of interest:

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/a-ww2.pdf

Gaffer isn't what you think, not by a long shot. He's simply principled and experienced in ways you can't understand, at least yet.

[LuvRPgrl]

When did the American bomb Brisbane? I know WWII pretty well and I don't remember that happening. Why would American forces bomb a city in Australia?

I expected Gaffer's response since I know he enjoys death and suffering. But if you know WWII, the citizens of a country have nothing to do with whether it surrenders or not. Thus, the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden did nothing but kill a lot of innocent people.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic targets. The purpose was to prove to the Emperor that the U.S. had atomic weapons.
Contrary to popular belief, the Japanese were nowhere near surrender in August of 1945. Even after the second bomb at Nagasaki, the Japanese military rulers did not want to surrender. It was the Emperor himself who overruled them.
There has been all kinds of criticism of the two A-bombs dropped on Japan as unnecessary and inhumane, but few choose to remember what the alternative was. An invasion of Japan was projected to cost the lives of close to a million Americans and 20 million Japanese.

Thanks for that correction, Dresden, not sure what I was thinking, that is what happens when I multi task.

Regarding your historical data, some of it is very inaccurate. In fact the surrendering of the Japs had to do with three things, "unconditional surrender", "the japs wanting to keep their emperor", and what was Riussia's immediate war plans. Alot of people dont know, but parts of Russia and China were still under Japanese control

I consider Dresden and the bombing in Japan to be two completely different animals. Another thing alot of people dont realize is that the horrors the japs perpetuated on peoples made what the nazis were doing look like childs play. Read some about the rape of Nanking.

[Gunny]

would you have supported the bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

Do you think the bombing of Brisbane has the same basic moral dilema?

If so, or not, why, and would you have bombed Brisbane as the US Military did?

All of these questions supposizes that you would have known, what you now currently know.

I'm assuming you mean 1945.

I would have supported both nuclear bombings as well as the fire bombing of Dresden. Unlike gabby's as usual ignorant rant, one does not have to revel in death and destruction to do what has to be done.

What I know now is what was known then. It was estimated the US could lose as many as 1M casualties invading the Japanese home islands. We lost 0 casualties using the A bombs. Strategically and tactically a perfect score from a military standpoint.


See I'm not sure what i "know" now.

I think that Japan was about to surrender. If so then No i would not.

I don't think Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were military targets.
If not i would not.

I don't see the point in targeting civilians in a war at all.
The military, the leaders and arms manufactures are the problem take them out and the war is over.
The Goal is to win the war, not kill everyone in the country.

Japan was not about to surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate military targets as they were huge industrial centers that supported Japan's war effort.

You can't win a war the way you want to do it. Been proven in Vietnam, Iraq and soon-to-be Afghanistan. The notion that war can be sanitized is some leftwing utopian delusion. When we fought wars to win unconditionally, we won. We started trying to sanitize them, our enemies just held out until we went home. We have all these allegedly "moral" rules the enemy hides behind at every turn.


If they weren't then maybe 1 nuke on a military target. then ask for surrender. no need for 2 bombs IMO and no need for more civilians.

Your ignorance of history is showing.

Japan was warned prior to the first bombing and again prior to the second bombing. Even if they feigned ignorance prior to the first, the second bomb was on them.

Again, both targets were viable military targets, not just cities chosen at random.

Your idealism regarding warfighting is delusional.


When did the American bomb Brisbane? I know WWII pretty well and I don't remember that happening. Why would American forces bomb a city in Australia?

I expected Gaffer's response since I know he enjoys death and suffering. But if you know WWII, the citizens of a country have nothing to do with whether it surrenders or not. Thus, the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden did nothing but kill a lot of innocent people.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic targets. The purpose was to prove to the Emperor that the U.S. had atomic weapons.
Contrary to popular belief, the Japanese were nowhere near surrender in August of 1945. Even after the second bomb at Nagasaki, the Japanese military rulers did not want to surrender. It was the Emperor himself who overruled them.
There has been all kinds of criticism of the two A-bombs dropped on Japan as unnecessary and inhumane, but few choose to remember what the alternative was. An invasion of Japan was projected to cost the lives of close to a million Americans and 20 million Japanese.

Knowing what has to be done and doing it has nothing to do with "enjoying death and suffering". That's a bullshit statement.

Bombing Tokyo and Dresden were strategically sound moves. Both were military industrial targets. Hirohito had nowhere near the power you ascribe him and he did not overrule anything. The Japanese agreed to surrender when the US agreed to leave Hirohito out of the "unconditional" part of "unconditional surrender". Had we not caved, the Japanese would have fought to the last man.


Thanks for that correction, Dresden, not sure what I was thinking, that is what happens when I multi task.

Regarding your historical data, some of it is very inaccurate. In fact the surrendering of the Japs had to do with three things, "unconditional surrender", "the japs wanting to keep their emperor", and what was Riussia's immediate war plans. Alot of people dont know, but parts of Russia and China were still under Japanese control

I consider Dresden and the bombing in Japan to be two completely different animals. Another thing alot of people dont realize is that the horrors the japs perpetuated on peoples made what the nazis were doing look like childs play. Read some about the rape of Nanking.

The US originally pushed Russia to open a second front against Japan. Once the US had control of the war and victory was inevitable, and the US saw what Stalin was doing in Europe, the US wasn't so anxious for that second front. In fact, it then became a matter of getting to Japan BEFORE Russia made a move.

Japan occupied a lot of China and Southeast Asia. To my knowledge, Japan did not occupy any part of Russia. That was one of Stalin's biggest excuses for not opening a second front against Japan.

[Gaffer]

The US originally pushed Russia to open a second front against Japan. Once the US had control of the war and victory was inevitable, and the US saw what Stalin was doing in Europe, the US wasn't so anxious for that second front. In fact, it then became a matter of getting to Japan BEFORE Russia made a move.

Japan occupied a lot of China and Southeast Asia. To my knowledge, Japan did not occupy any part of Russia. That was one of Stalin's biggest excuses for not opening a second front against Japan.

FYI Japan had control of a number of islands that they had taken from the Russians back in 1906. Russia wanted them back. A few of those islands are still contested today.

I can't believe I didn't catch the Brisbane snafu. Something told me that Dresden was what LuvRPgrl was referring too, which is why I mentioned it.

Thanks Jim for the site about Hiroshima. Nice refresher.

[revelarts]

Gunny so your saying that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a military industrial targets, and so morally legit ones.
And that the enemy was warned before hand both times , a moral act.
SO we did and can win a war using some morals and "delusional idealism".

great, I thought so.

[logroller]

What I know now is what was known then. It was estimated the US could lose as many as 1M casualties invading the Japanese home islands. We lost 0 casualties using the A bombs. Strategically and tactically a perfect score from a military standpoint.

Japan was not about to surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate military targets as they were huge industrial centers that supported Japan's war effort.

You can't win a war the way you want to do it. Been proven in Vietnam, Iraq and soon-to-be Afghanistan. The notion that war can be sanitized is some leftwing utopian delusion. When we fought wars to win unconditionally, we won. We started trying to sanitize them, our enemies just held out until we went home. We have all these allegedly "moral" rules the enemy hides behind at every turn.

Japan was warned prior to the first bombing and again prior to the second bombing. Even if they feigned ignorance prior to the first, the second bomb was on them.

Again, both targets were viable military targets, not just cities chosen at random.

Your idealism regarding warfighting is delusional.

Knowing what has to be done and doing it has nothing to do with "enjoying death and suffering". That's a bullshit statement.

Bombing Tokyo and Dresden were strategically sound moves. Both were military industrial targets. Hirohito had nowhere near the power you ascribe him and he did not overrule anything. The Japanese agreed to surrender when the US agreed to leave Hirohito out of the "unconditional" part of "unconditional surrender". Had we not caved, the Japanese would have fought to the last man.

The US originally pushed Russia to open a second front against Japan. Once the US had control of the war and victory was inevitable, and the US saw what Stalin was doing in Europe, the US wasn't so anxious for that second front. In fact, it then became a matter of getting to Japan BEFORE Russia made a move.

Japan occupied a lot of China and Southeast Asia. To my knowledge, Japan did not occupy any part of Russia. That was one of Stalin's biggest excuses for not opening a second front against Japan.

The propaganda campaign waged during the war, by all sides, ingrained a determination among combatants and citizens. Entrenched Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima, cut off from command and control, remained until 1951, six years after formal surrender; the commitment of the Japanese people was as formidable as it was admirable. The idea, that war can be fought with uncompromising respect for human life is fundamentally flawed. Today, a movie of the week brings concern over the casualties of war; whereas windows in the forties were emblazened with gold stars, an everpresent reminder of the sacrifice required to preserve liberty. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though abhorrent to peaceniks, saved countless human lives, of both friend and foe alike.

*rep must be spread before giving it to Gunny again!*





Thanks Jim for the site about Hiroshima. Nice refresher.

Eek, another snafu?---Thanks to Kath for the site, it was very informative.

[Gaffer]

I seem to be having a number of biden moments.

[LuvRPgrl]

I chose a year somewhat randomly, as long as it is prior to the bombings, and not so far before so that they wouldnt even be a possibility at the time.

In looking back, since the nuclear bombs were in the original equation, either by mistake (as I did), or by intention realizing a mistake had probably been made, then I would have proceeded along as Gunny and others did, assuming that Brisbane should have been Dresden based on the fact that Dresden, if not the, was one of the heaviest bombings and casualties in the European theater, and as Kath's link pointed out, there really was no bombing of Brisbane.

That was my mistake, no one elses. Carry on, I am all ears, seriously, but lets try to not bring old feuds into a topic that I have changed my pov on several times due to receing new information, and thinking certain things through. Like, should an innocent person who blatatnly opposed Hitler the entire time, be subjected to being killed by American bombs? That very well could have been me, you or some of our families. My mom was born in Riga.

[LuvRPgrl]

Gunny so your saying that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a military industrial targets, and so morally legit ones.
I think he mentioned that they were military targets not to illustrate that, that is what made them morally acceptable targets, but rather, as a response to your statement that they werent military targets at all. Fact is, of course Tokoyo was the first consideration, but rejected because there apparently was not much military "stuff" there.
.

And that the enemy was warned before hand both times , a moral act.
SO we did and can win a war using some morals and "delusional idealism".

great, I thought so.

Read my sig, I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but to be fair to Gunny, who is getting flak from a few here, I think he is indicating that we can try to let morality dictate some of our actions, or lack of, but only to a point, go beyond that point and lose the war. And, that in fact, leftist libs always want to go waaaayyyyyy to far past that point.

[Kathianne]

I don't care who gets credit for the link, that several read an original document from the 40's thrills me. ;)

One of the most useful ways of understanding what happened and why in the past is to read what those alive then were thinking at the time. It's difficult for young people to consider that when they study an era, the texts lay it out in what is considered a summary of important facets-(i.e., people, economy, wars, natural disasters, culture, etc.) That all these different aspects are continuous and simultaneous is often missed. Then there are the teachers, themselves often possessing the same problem, so the farther back one goes, the more they put today's values and perceptions on those of the past. Often too, in the not so distant past, they look at those times with biased glasses, biases they learned from teachers or others.

[Kathianne]

In war, since the beginning of time but certainly escalating in 19th and 20th C civilians are going to be casualties. Be it from slavery to starvation, bombs falling, or raping and pillaging. If you want innocents saved from harm, make diplomacy work and be stronger than the other guys.

I'm convinced that the Japanese sites were chosen because they were relatively undamaged, they were industrial areas providing goods for the military, and they were areas where the civilian casualties would be kept down as opposed to other suggestions of targets. To bomb into submission, which was the point, the loss of life would be far less for US and significantly lower for Japanese, Chinese, etc.

[Kathianne]

Nearly all are aware of Einstein's regrets over his developments that led to nuclear development, though it was only a matter of time.

Even back then, scientists and others worried about what was going to happen in the near and not-so-near future. One of the best books I've read from the time was by CP Snow, who was involved in the Manhattan Project, The New Men. I thought it out of print for awhile, but no, Amazon has it. http://www.amazon.com/New-Men-Strangers-Brothers/dp/1842324241

[Gunny]

Gunny so your saying that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a military industrial targets, and so morally legit ones.
And that the enemy was warned before hand both times , a moral act.
SO we did and can win a war using some morals and "delusional idealism".

great, I thought so.

I don't suffer the same dilemna you consistently display confusing my personal morals with my duty and ability to win a strategic/tactical war, nor do I attempt to impose them on others; especially, when those doing the imposing are often the biggest hypocrites.

I don't know your stance on the issue so I am not accusing you specifically, but .... if all the do-gooders so worried about noncombatant casualties abroad were half as concerned about unborn children being murdered HERE, abortion wouldn't be an issue, would it? If the progressive left lived by the same morals they use the media to hamstring our troops with, Jesus would be impressed. But they want to do the drugs du jpur, have unprotected sex, then murder the outcome of their irresponsible behavior.

During a time of war, a target that contributes to the enemy's war-making efforts is a strategically legit one. The idea is to win. Or just stay home and vent your feigned outrage rattling your tongue against the roof of your mouth and not killing our military personnel with your unrealistic moral idealism that has no place in war with an enemy that possesses no such morals.

[Gunny]

I chose a year somewhat randomly, as long as it is prior to the bombings, and not so far before so that they wouldnt even be a possibility at the time.

In looking back, since the nuclear bombs were in the original equation, either by mistake (as I did), or by intention realizing a mistake had probably been made, then I would have proceeded along as Gunny and others did, assuming that Brisbane should have been Dresden based on the fact that Dresden, if not the, was one of the heaviest bombings and casualties in the European theater, and as Kath's link pointed out, there really was no bombing of Brisbane.

That was my mistake, no one elses. Carry on, I am all ears, seriously, but lets try to not bring old feuds into a topic that I have changed my pov on several times due to receing new information, and thinking certain things through. Like, should an innocent person who blatatnly opposed Hitler the entire time, be subjected to being killed by American bombs? That very well could have been me, you or some of our families. My mom was born in Riga.

Dresden was firebombed to the point it created a firestorm on a massive scale and anything within was incinerated. Brisbane is a port in Australia and while Aussies tend to be full of themselves, a simple asswhooping outside the bar usually suffices to quell the arguments. ;)

[gabosaurus]

Dresden was firebombed to the point it created a firestorm on a massive scale and anything within was incinerated. Brisbane is a port in Australia and while Aussies tend to be full of themselves, a simple asswhooping outside the bar usually suffices to quell the arguments. ;)

I've been to Australia and met many that were tougher and had a higher moral character than you do.
I've also been to Dresden and spoken to those who were there in World War II. Including my great aunt. And it repulses me to know there are those who cheer in the face of a mass murder. You are the equivalent of Islamic extremists who cheered the attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, because they also enjoyed carnage.
Dresden was a primarily civilian site, bombed near the end of the war merely as an exercise of revenge. Many Allied commanders regretted it. Unfortunately, there are always the gutless cowards who believe the object of conflict is to kill as many people as possible, whether they were involved with the actual conflict or not.
That is why so many battles produce a lot of civilian casualties, because there are (thankfully few) members of the military who believe the gun in their hands gives them the right to kill anyone they want, without a chance of repercussions of any kind.
It is a sad representation of humanity that revels at the memory of death, but I suppose the sickness will always be there.

[revelarts]

I don't suffer the same dilemna you consistently display confusing my personal morals with my duty and ability to win a strategic/tactical war...

confuse personal morals with duty in war?
That sounds horrible gunny. and when you add " nor do i attempt to impose them on others." it sounds like a liberal justification for abortion line to me.
Sorry Gunny I was under the assumption that morals apply in every situation. I don't always live up to them myself but there is never a legit OFF mode that I know of.


to review:
Gunny to Revelarts
"You CAN'T win a war the way you want to do it. Been proven…"
"We have all these allegedly "moral" rules the enemy the enemy hides behind"
"Your idealism regarding war fighting is delusional."
"When we fought wars to win unconditionally, we won. We started trying to sanitize them"

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate military targets"
"Japan was warned prior to the first bombing and again prior to the second bombing."

Your response shows that YOU expect there to be some moral restraint AND you defend the acts as moral even as you condemn morals with you next words.
I was just pointing out your own contradiction.
There was morality and "sanitized" war fighting going on even in WWII. Even at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I thought I was being clear. I hope you can unify your morals into something cohesive. YOU sound conflicted, confused even.

On one hand you defend as moral the activity of the military and deny it's immorality. Then a line later morality doesn't sound like something you hold in high regard. Then you use a decent moral standard as an insult against others. Then you come back and say you know how to separate "personal morals" from "Duty".
whatever you say Gunny. But the only thing i'm confused about is what YOU mean by morals.





I don't know your stance on the issue so I am not accusing you specifically, but .... if all the do-gooders so worried about noncombatant casualties abroad were half as concerned about unborn children being murdered HERE, abortion wouldn't be an issue, would it? If the progressive left lived by the same morals they use the media to hamstring our troops with, Jesus would be impressed. But they want to do the drugs du jpur, have unprotected sex, then murder the outcome of their irresponsible behavior.
I'm 100% pro-life. And I agree with much of that statement.



During a time of war, a target that contributes to the enemy's war-making efforts is a strategically legit one. The idea is to win. Or just stay home and vent your feigned outrage rattling your tongue against the roof of your mouth and not killing our military personnel with your unrealistic moral idealism that has no place in war with an enemy that possesses no such morals.
strategically legit is one thing, but strategically prime targets are what wins. And I generally agree with "contributes to the enemy" but it really to vague, it can encompass just about anyone. From an arms dealer to a kid giving lemonade to enemy soldiers passing by.
Morals help us draw a real line between the 2.

The enemy's morals are not a hindrance to our victory. Their military strength and strategy is.
Their immorality doesn't make them stronger. Charles Manson with a knife is no match for a Texas Pastor with a Mark 19 and minigun. Seems to me.

[LuvRPgrl]

i've been to australia and met many that were tougher and had a higher moral character than you do.
I've also been to dresden and spoken to those who were there in world war ii. Including my great aunt. And it repulses me to know there are those who cheer in the face of a mass murder. You are the equivalent of islamic extremists who cheered the attack on the pentagon and world trade center, because they also enjoyed carnage.
Dresden was a primarily civilian site, bombed near the end of the war merely as an exercise of revenge. Many allied commanders regretted it. Unfortunately, there are always the gutless cowards who believe the object of conflict is to kill as many people as possible, whether they were involved with the actual conflict or not.
That is why so many battles produce a lot of civilian casualties, because there are (thankfully few) members of the military who believe the gun in their hands gives them the right to kill anyone they want, without a chance of repercussions of any kind.
It is a sad representation of humanity that revels at the memory of death, but i suppose the sickness will always be there.

fuck you

[logroller]

wwwII and 9-11 refs are unsupported hyperbole and, when prefaced with personal attack, demonstrate to me a truly retaliatory response akin to your indignations of gunny; unbecoming a person of high intellectual character. I recognize gunny's narrow-minded consideration, as I understand his prsumption (as I do your's).

Fire-bombing is easily presumed a dastardly deed, but given the losses predecating the dresden bombing (90,000 dead at BoB alone), it's easy tosurmise after defeating a wartime enemy that a diplomatic conclusion was the solution; precipitated, however, from a trial of will, beset too often with massive outlay of life during a battle of morale between the engaged parties. I'm certainly those dresden residents were surprised by such an attack; even ill-prepared and overwhelmed, but not more than one should surmise possible during times of war. Excessive hostility, puhleeease. Ask a German vet about russian treatment of POWs and the castration of German soldiers, that's a fact jack! Ya wanna make an omelete, you gotta crack a few eggs. Germany was formidable enemy and is a much better ally. Instead of reliving the past, we should focus upon lessons learned-- national socialism failed, as did Soviet communism ( which caused an untold millions of deaths) and we have persevered because of our determination towards liberty for All!

You think Aussies are all that?
I dig 'em, that croc dundee guy was cool cat, but a 16 yr old versed WoW, utilizing American armed forces, could bring Australia to it's knees in two weeks. You seen the Bikini Islands lately? :laugh: nor will you. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers; I'd prefer to discuss differences over beer, but as God is my witness, I'd be the first to bring a gun to a knife fight!


I've been to Australia and met many that were tougher and had a higher moral character than you do.
I've also been to Dresden and spoken to those who were there in World War II. Including my great aunt. And it repulses me to know there are those who cheer in the face of a mass murder. You are the equivalent of Islamic extremists who cheered the attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, because they also enjoyed carnage.
Dresden was a primarily civilian site, bombed near the end of the war merely as an exercise of revenge. Many Allied commanders regretted it. Unfortunately, there are always the gutless cowards who believe the object of conflict is to kill as many people as possible, whether they were involved with the actual conflict or not.
That is why so many battles produce a lot of civilian casualties, because there are (thankfully few) members of the military who believe the gun in their hands gives them the right to kill anyone they want, without a chance of repercussions of any kind.
It is a sad representation of humanity that revels at the memory of death, but I suppose the sickness will always be there.

[LuvRPgrl]

I like.
But you did lose me in a few spots, I will go back and reread, slower.
It would be nice if you could somehow make the form of your listing a little easier to read.
Thanks,,,,,R


wwwII and 9-11 refs are unsupported hyperbole and, when prefaced with personal attack, demonstrate to me a truly retaliatory response akin to your indignations of gunny; unbecoming a person of high intellectual character. I recognize gunny's narrow-minded consideration, as I understand his prsumption (as I do your's).

Fire-bombing is easily presumed a dastardly deed, but given the losses predecating the dresden bombing (90,000 dead at BoB alone), it's easy tosurmise after defeating a wartime enemy that a diplomatic conclusion was the solution; precipitated, however, from a trial of will, beset too often with massive outlay of life during a battle of morale between the engaged parties. I'm certainly those dresden residents were surprised by such an attack; even ill-prepared and overwhelmed, but not more than one should surmise possible during times of war. Excessive hostility, puhleeease. Ask a German vet about russian treatment of POWs and the castration of German soldiers, that's a fact jack! Ya wanna make an omelete, you gotta crack a few eggs. Germany was formidable enemy and is a much better ally. Instead of reliving the past, we should focus upon lessons learned-- national socialism failed, as did Soviet communism ( which caused an untold millions of deaths) and we have persevered because of our determination towards liberty for All!

You think Aussies are all that?
I dig 'em, that croc dundee guy was cool cat, but a 16 yr old versed WoW, utilizing American armed forces, could bring Australia to it's knees in two weeks. You seen the Bikini Islands lately? :laugh: nor will you. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers; I'd prefer to discuss differences over beer, but as God is my witness, I'd be the first to bring a gun to a knife fight!

[Gunny]

I've been to Australia and met many that were tougher and had a higher moral character than you do.
I've also been to Dresden and spoken to those who were there in World War II. Including my great aunt. And it repulses me to know there are those who cheer in the face of a mass murder. You are the equivalent of Islamic extremists who cheered the attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, because they also enjoyed carnage.
Dresden was a primarily civilian site, bombed near the end of the war merely as an exercise of revenge. Many Allied commanders regretted it. Unfortunately, there are always the gutless cowards who believe the object of conflict is to kill as many people as possible, whether they were involved with the actual conflict or not.
That is why so many battles produce a lot of civilian casualties, because there are (thankfully few) members of the military who believe the gun in their hands gives them the right to kill anyone they want, without a chance of repercussions of any kind.
It is a sad representation of humanity that revels at the memory of death, but I suppose the sickness will always be there.

You're a real dip. Again, Ms Lost In The Sauce, there's a REAL difference between doing what it takes to win and "cheering in the face of murder".

Unfortunately, there are always the gutless cowards who sit home while others pay a price in blood, sweat and tears for the aforementioned lame to hide in mommy's basement and run their mouths as if they actually earned the right to criticize their betters. YOU are the coward. YOU ignore the actions of our enemies while attacking those that sacrifice so you can flap your big fat mouth.

Pull your head out of your butt, huh? I'm not cheering anything but winning and I at least put my money where my mouth is.

It is a sad representation of the people of the US that revel in the defeat of the very people that provide their freedom. The "sickness" lies with the YOUR hypocrisy.

[Gunny]

confuse personal morals with duty in war?
That sounds horrible gunny. and when you add " nor do i attempt to impose them on others." it sounds like a liberal justification for abortion line to me.
Sorry Gunny I was under the assumption that morals apply in every situation. I don't always live up to them myself but there is never a legit OFF mode that I know of.


to review:
Gunny to Revelarts
"You CAN'T win a war the way you want to do it. Been proven…"
"We have all these allegedly "moral" rules the enemy the enemy hides behind"
"Your idealism regarding war fighting is delusional."
"When we fought wars to win unconditionally, we won. We started trying to sanitize them"

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate military targets"
"Japan was warned prior to the first bombing and again prior to the second bombing."

Your response shows that YOU expect there to be some moral restraint AND you defend the acts as moral even as you condemn morals with you next words.
I was just pointing out your own contradiction.
There was morality and "sanitized" war fighting going on even in WWII. Even at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I thought I was being clear. I hope you can unify your morals into something cohesive. YOU sound conflicted, confused even.

On one hand you defend as moral the activity of the military and deny it's immorality. Then a line later morality doesn't sound like something you hold in high regard. Then you use a decent moral standard as an insult against others. Then you come back and say you know how to separate "personal morals" from "Duty".
whatever you say Gunny. But the only thing i'm confused about is what YOU mean by morals.




I'm 100% pro-life. And I agree with much of that statement.


strategically legit is one thing, but strategically prime targets are what wins. And I generally agree with "contributes to the enemy" but it really to vague, it can encompass just about anyone. From an arms dealer to a kid giving lemonade to enemy soldiers passing by.
Morals help us draw a real line between the 2.

The enemy's morals are not a hindrance to our victory. Their military strength and strategy is.
Their immorality doesn't make them stronger. Charles Manson with a knife is no match for a Texas Pastor with a Mark 19 and minigun. Seems to me.

Try playing semantics with Gabby, huh? She's more your speed.

I made a pretty good distinction between my personal moral standard and not allowing my personal beliefs to interfere with the logic and reasoning that are entailed in warfighting.

You're not getting the simplicity of it here. The enemy not being hindered by some arbitrary set of morals and using people like YOURS against them IS their military strategical strength. Their immorality damned sure does make them stronger when people like you want to "play by some arbitrary bullshit set of rules" thereby providing the enemy with a weakness to exploit.

[Gunny]

wwwII and 9-11 refs are unsupported hyperbole and, when prefaced with personal attack, demonstrate to me a truly retaliatory response akin to your indignations of gunny; unbecoming a person of high intellectual character. I recognize gunny's narrow-minded consideration, as I understand his prsumption (as I do your's).

Fire-bombing is easily presumed a dastardly deed, but given the losses predecating the dresden bombing (90,000 dead at BoB alone), it's easy tosurmise after defeating a wartime enemy that a diplomatic conclusion was the solution; precipitated, however, from a trial of will, beset too often with massive outlay of life during a battle of morale between the engaged parties. I'm certainly those dresden residents were surprised by such an attack; even ill-prepared and overwhelmed, but not more than one should surmise possible during times of war. Excessive hostility, puhleeease. Ask a German vet about russian treatment of POWs and the castration of German soldiers, that's a fact jack! Ya wanna make an omelete, you gotta crack a few eggs. Germany was formidable enemy and is a much better ally. Instead of reliving the past, we should focus upon lessons learned-- national socialism failed, as did Soviet communism ( which caused an untold millions of deaths) and we have persevered because of our determination towards liberty for All!

You think Aussies are all that?
I dig 'em, that croc dundee guy was cool cat, but a 16 yr old versed WoW, utilizing American armed forces, could bring Australia to it's knees in two weeks. You seen the Bikini Islands lately? :laugh: nor will you. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers; I'd prefer to discuss differences over beer, but as God is my witness, I'd be the first to bring a gun to a knife fight!

Methinks you are already talking it over a beer.:laugh:

Narrow-minded? Hardly. I abhor violence and will do all that I can to avoid it. You use Europe and Germany as an example, but the fact is, Germany was appeased beyond anything it deserved. Hitler had taken over most of Western Europe before anyone bothered to do anything. How many lives would have been saved had he been stopped from the get-go?

I am singular and focused on the topic. People like Gabby think you can rattle your saber and scare others into subservience. I on the other hand believe you don't draw your sword unless you're willing to use it, and I'm not listening to the Gabby's in this world Monday morning QB-ing how I used it.

People like her don't deserve the freedom others have bled and died to provide her. If Americans thought like her all along, there'd be no USA. Just one big sheep pen.

[CSM]

Methinks you are already talking it over a beer.:laugh:

Narrow-minded? Hardly. I abhor violence and will do all that I can to avoid it. You use Europe and Germany as an example, but the fact is, Germany was appeased beyond anything it deserved. Hitler had taken over most of Western Europe before anyone bothered to do anything. How many lives would have been saved had he been stopped from the get-go?

I am singular and focused on the topic. People like Gabby think you can rattle your saber and scare others into subservience. I on the other hand believe you don't draw your sword unless you're willing to use it, and I'm not listening to the Gabby's in this world Monday morning QB-ing how I used it.

People like her don't deserve the freedom others have bled and died to provide her. If Americans thought like her all along, there'd be no USA. Just one big sheep pen.

AMEN! Sadly, there are some folks who are trying very hard to make the United States of America one big sheep pen. Of course, they believe that they themselves will be shepherds and everyone else will be the sheep. One can only hope that someday they will wake up and realize that they may be a ram but that still makes them a sheep.

[revelarts]

I made a pretty good distinction between my personal moral standard and not allowing my personal beliefs to interfere with the logic and reasoning that are entailed in warfighting.
uhm, sure ya did.




You're not getting the simplicity of it here. The enemy not being hindered by some arbitrary set of morals and using people like YOURS against them IS their military strategical strength. Their immorality damned sure does make them stronger when people like you want to "play by some arbitrary bullshit set of rules" thereby providing the enemy with a weakness to exploit.
SO to catch a thief you must become a thief, to stop a rapist you must become a rapist. to stop torture you must torture. to stop a murder you must always murder. To stop a cannibal you must become a cannibal. To stop a pedophile you must become a pedophile. because immorallity makes you stronger.
I see the simplicity in that.

[gabosaurus]

Unfortunately, there are always the gutless cowards who sit home while others pay a price in blood, sweat and tears for the aforementioned lame to hide in mommy's basement and run their mouths as if they actually earned the right to criticize their betters. YOU are the coward. YOU ignore the actions of our enemies while attacking those that sacrifice so you can flap your big fat mouth.

Pull your head out of your butt, huh? I'm not cheering anything but winning and I at least put my money where my mouth is.


YOU have no fucking clue. You make no distinction between those fighting wars and those caught in the middle. And if you think everyone in between is cannon fodder, then you are a disgrace to those that you represent.
YOU haven't made any sacrifices as all. You are sitting their flapping your big mouth like you are some kind of hero, which you aren't. Everyone has a job to do. Just because don't volunteer to do the job you volunteered to do doesn't make them cowards. It just makes you an idiot for claiming you are better than others.
Members of my family fought in World War II (both sides) because that is what they believed in. Other fought in future conflicts in order to give me the freedom to make my choices. My dad's best friend served two tours of duty in Viet Nam and was wounded twice. But I have never heard him brag about how he is a war hero, or how he is better than anyone else. That is because he has the humility and dignity missing in some of you who feel that putting on a uniform gives you the right to pretend you are lord and master over everyone else.
Living in this country, you have no clue what it is like. You just pretend that you do. I feel sorry for your ignorance.

[LuvRPgrl]

If they weren't then maybe 1 nuke on a military target. then ask for surrender. no need for 2 bombs IMO and no need for more civilians.

My opinion is that Germany and Japan were completely different animals.

Fact is, what you say above proves one of my points about needing to use the Nuke, and the need to use the 2nd nuke. The fact that THE FIRST NUKE DIDNT BRING THEM TO THEIR KNEES, shows that we HAD to do the second one, and who knows if we didn't, how much it would have taken to get them to that point.
....I mean, MY GOD !!!! We just dropped the most destructive thing by far and away, in history. something that made thee convential bombs look like childs play, AND YET THEY DIDNT FREAKING GIVE UP. THEY WERE TOTAL FANATICS.

I dont believe the same with the Germans. In fact, I think the majority of German people were opposed to Hitler. He didn't come to power by a democratic process, he fixed the few elections he did run in, he politically maneuvered and conned some of thosse in power to cede it to him, he used brute force to take control of much of the German Military, and by then it was too late.

I think alot of Germans probably wound up half heartedly supporting him for understanable reasons. I mean, suddently you are at war, regardless of why or who started it, and its just natural for alot of people to slide into, "I will support my leader" slot. I mean, I hate Obama, but I do support his effort to win in Afghanastan.

NOT TO MENTION THERE WERE A LOT OF ASSASINATION ATTEMPTS ON HITLER.

[LuvRPgrl]

When did the American bomb Brisbane? I know WWII pretty well and I don't remember that happening. Why would American forces bomb a city in Australia?.
Others were able to figure out the mistake, such as Gaffer who wrote "Dresden" in his post.


I expected Gaffer's response since I know he enjoys death and suffering..
Why do you have to make it personal? OH WAIT I know, cuz you dont have any solid arguements against his POV. If you cant win on facts, then attack the opponent.


But if you know WWII, the citizens of a country have nothing to do with whether it surrenders or not..
That simply is not true.


Thus, the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden did nothing but kill a lot of innocent people..
Again, NOt true. From Wikipedia "Super Fortress bomber entered service, first employed from China and thereafter the Mariana Islands (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Mariana_Islands). B-29 raids from those islands commenced on November 17, 1944 and lasted until August 15, 1945, the day Japan capitulated.[1] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-0)"

Bombing can be very effective. We bombed the N Vietnamese into submission and they gave up and signed a peace treaty cease fire with us, and agreed to not have excursions across the border into S Vietnam any more. Had we been willing to go back to bombing once the NOrth broke that treaty, the South would not have fallen.



Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic targets. The purpose was to prove to the Emperor that the U.S. had atomic weapons.
Contrary to popular belief, the Japanese were nowhere near surrender in August of 1945..
You need to reread your history. Their were two issues preventing the Japs from agreeing to a peace treaty, first, the US wanted unconditional surrender, but the Japs wanted ONE concession, and America said NO! Also, the situation with Russia was something very important, that actually made the Japs want to end the war, and they were weighing if they should hold out for that one concession, or just give up so the Russians wont be able to attack them.


Even after the second bomb at Nagasaki, the Japanese military rulers did not want to surrender. It was the Emperor himself who overruled them.
There has been all kinds of criticism of the two A-bombs dropped on Japan as unnecessary and inhumane, but few choose to remember what the alternative was. An invasion of Japan was projected to cost the lives of close to a million Americans and 20 million Japanese.

[Gunny]

YOU have no fucking clue. You make no distinction between those fighting wars and those caught in the middle. And if you think everyone in between is cannon fodder, then you are a disgrace to those that you represent.
YOU haven't made any sacrifices as all. You are sitting their flapping your big mouth like you are some kind of hero, which you aren't. Everyone has a job to do. Just because don't volunteer to do the job you volunteered to do doesn't make them cowards. It just makes you an idiot for claiming you are better than others.
Members of my family fought in World War II (both sides) because that is what they believed in. Other fought in future conflicts in order to give me the freedom to make my choices. My dad's best friend served two tours of duty in Viet Nam and was wounded twice. But I have never heard him brag about how he is a war hero, or how he is better than anyone else. That is because he has the humility and dignity missing in some of you who feel that putting on a uniform gives you the right to pretend you are lord and master over everyone else.
Living in this country, you have no clue what it is like. You just pretend that you do. I feel sorry for your ignorance.

The clueless one would be YOU, and anyone else that thinks they can hamstring their own military with a bunch of faux moralistic rules and BS and win. Same as you can't launch sideways into personally attacking me for claims I have not made and/or a stances I don't hold and win an argument you already lost.

Your entire commentary on my service is nothing but a cheap red herring. Not only that, you contradict yourself attempting to belittle MY service and claiming I hold stances I do not while attempting to canonize others for the same in the very next line. Fact is, I have never once claimed to be any sort of hero, and I don't like the way the word is thrown around almost as much as you lefties love "we support the troops" although your actions belie your words.

Fact is, you're out-matched and out-gunned in an argument and you don't like it. Too damned bad. Cry me a river. Your above response speaks volumes on what your opinion is worth.

[darin]

YOU have no fucking clue. You make no distinction between those fighting wars and those caught in the middle. And if you think everyone in between is cannon fodder, then you are a disgrace to those that you represent.
YOU haven't made any sacrifices as all. You are sitting their flapping your big mouth like you are some kind of hero, which you aren't. Everyone has a job to do. Just because don't volunteer to do the job you volunteered to do doesn't make them cowards. It just makes you an idiot for claiming you are better than others.
Members of my family fought in World War II (both sides) because that is what they believed in. Other fought in future conflicts in order to give me the freedom to make my choices. My dad's best friend served two tours of duty in Viet Nam and was wounded twice. But I have never heard him brag about how he is a war hero, or how he is better than anyone else. That is because he has the humility and dignity missing in some of you who feel that putting on a uniform gives you the right to pretend you are lord and master over everyone else.
Living in this country, you have no clue what it is like. You just pretend that you do. I feel sorry for your ignorance.

Gabby, you have finally cemented yourself as a piece of crap. Seriously. Your stupidity is only second to your ignorance.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you just want to vent with personal attacks,(YOU have no fucking clue.)
please lead your post with "JUST VENTING".
If you make claims about what GUnny or anyone else supposedly say, (You make no distinction between those fighting wars and those caught in the middle. And if you think everyone in between is cannon fodder)please provide quotes.
.....If you are going to give an opinion of someone,( Just because don't volunteer to do the job you volunteered to do doesn't make them cowards) please provide some info that backs it up.
YOU have no fucking clue. You make no distinction between those fighting wars and those caught in the middle. And if you think everyone in between is cannon fodder, then you are a disgrace to those that you represent.
YOU haven't made any sacrifices as all.Everyone has a job to do. Just because don't volunteer to do the job you volunteered to do doesn't make them cowards. It just makes you an idiot for claiming you are better than others.
Members of my family fought in World War II (both sides) because that is what they believed in. Other fought in future conflicts in order to give me the freedom to make my choices. My dad's best friend served two tours of duty in Viet Nam and was wounded twice. But I have never heard him brag about how he is a war hero, or how he is better than anyone else. That is because he has the humility and dignity missing in some of you who feel that putting on a uniform gives you the right to pretend you are lord and master over everyone else.
Living in this country, you have no clue what it is like. You just pretend that you do. I feel sorry for your ignorance.

[ConHog]

would you have supported the bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

Do you think the bombing of Brisbane has the same basic moral dilema?

If so, or not, why, and would you have bombed Brisbane as the US Military did?

All of these questions supposizes that you would have known, what you now currently know.

Psst we didn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1941.

[andrew2382]

Psst we didn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1941.

exactly

[ConHog]

The clueless one would be YOU, and anyone else that thinks they can hamstring their own military with a bunch of faux moralistic rules and BS and win. Same as you can't launch sideways into personally attacking me for claims I have not made and/or a stances I don't hold and win an argument you already lost.

Your entire commentary on my service is nothing but a cheap red herring. Not only that, you contradict yourself attempting to belittle MY service and claiming I hold stances I do not while attempting to canonize others for the same in the very next line. Fact is, I have never once claimed to be any sort of hero, and I don't like the way the word is thrown around almost as much as you lefties love "we support the troops" although your actions belie your words.

Fact is, you're out-matched and out-gunned in an argument and you don't like it. Too damned bad. Cry me a river. Your above response speaks volumes on what your opinion is worth.

Bravo to you Gunny. I read the post you quoted and couldn't make heads nor tails of it, bravo to you for being able to interpret it. Seriously , all I got out of it was that dude's family couldn't make up its mind which side it supported in WWII and that his family is heroes for fighting, but no one else is.....

[LuvRPgrl]

Psst we didn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1941.

Yea, I know that. I picked 41 cuz it means in my scenario, that you were alive prior to the bombing, and have seen the entirity of the war with which to base your opinion on when the question of "to bomb or not to bomb" comes up>

[ConHog]

Yea, I know that. I picked 41 cuz it means in my scenario, that you were alive prior to the bombing, and have seen the entirity of the war with which to base your opinion on when the question of "to bomb or not to bomb" comes up>

Fair enough.

To answer your question. I would have supported it. The Japanese were never going to surrender short of invading the homeland and that would have cost an estimated 20 million Japanese lives as well as 1 million Allied lives.

[LuvRPgrl]

Fair enough.

To answer your question. I would have supported it. The Japanese were never going to surrender short of invading the homeland and that would have cost an estimated 20 million Japanese lives as well as 1 million Allied lives.

I concur with that. Not so much Dresden.

[logroller]

I concur with that. Not so much Dresden.

If you accept the bombings of Japan as justified by saving lives, consider this -- "Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki"-wiki. How many died in the dresden bombings, 25k? And we achieved victory in Europe first, with three times the loss of American life.

[Kathianne]

If you accept the bombings of Japan as justified by saving lives, consider this -- "Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki"-wiki. How many died in the dresden bombings, 25k? And we achieved victory in Europe first, with three times the loss of American life.

Dresden has always been a bit more morally ambiguous. Certainly the strategic value of manufacturing and rail couldn't have been denied, a year earlier. By 1945 though, the Soviets were rapidly approaching, sending German civilians and other refugees fleeing into the city from the east. It had already been bombed multiple times. Yet, there were still producing factories, churning out goods for the German war effort.

At the same time, it was obvious that the allies were going to win. The firebombing certainly was in part, payback time for the bombing of London and the war in general. Estimates of death have 25k as the low point, 100k as the high.

If not for the discovery of the Holocaust, this bombing and the retaliatory aspects may have been given more scrutiny. However the death camps were indeed fact, thus muting any discussions of meaning.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you accept the bombings of Japan as justified by saving lives, consider this -- "Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki"-wiki. How many died in the dresden bombings, 25k? And we achieved victory in Europe first, with three times the loss of American life.

Text in red is actually an arguement for what we did in Japan, as it saved American lives.
In Japan, I dont give much of a rats ass how many japs died.
And as far as ending the war in Europe first, that was because Germany was up against a larger number and stronger foes, not to mention they were practically right next door and didnt have to cross the biggest "anything" on the earth to get to the enemy.

[LuvRPgrl]

Dresden has always been a bit more morally ambiguous. Certainly the strategic value of manufacturing and rail couldn't have been denied, a year earlier. By 1945 though, the Soviets were rapidly approaching, sending German civilians and other refugees fleeing into the city from the east. It had already been bombed multiple times. Yet, there were still producing factories, churning out goods for the German war effort.

At the same time, it was obvious that the allies were going to win. The firebombing certainly was in part, payback time for the bombing of London and the war in general. Estimates of death have 25k as the low point, 100k as the high.

If not for the discovery of the Holocaust, this bombing and the retaliatory aspects may have been given more scrutiny. However the death camps were indeed fact, thus muting any discussions of meaning.

Yea, I often think about the last few days of the war in Europe, those who died even though the outcome was 100% assured. I wonder who was the last person to die. How much tragedy and death could have been avoided.
......We as the supreme leaders of the world DO IN FACT HAVE A HIGHER MORAL OBLIGATION THAN OTHERS. To whom much is given, much is expected. The parable of Jesus and the servants with the talents he loaned them.
.....Plus, I very rarely think revenge is justified. And certainly not against the German people. It could very well have been my mom who was killed.

[Kathianne]

Yea, I often think about the last few days of the war in Europe, those who died even though the outcome was 100% assured. I wonder who was the last person to die. How much tragedy and death could have been avoided.
......We as the supreme leaders of the world DO IN FACT HAVE A HIGHER MORAL OBLIGATION THAN OTHERS. To whom much is given, much is expected. The parable of Jesus and the servants with the talents he loaned them.
.....Plus, I very rarely think revenge is justified. And certainly not against the German people. It could very well have been my mom who was killed.Truth is that with Sherman's march through to the Atlantic, civilians were from then on going to be a target to undermine morale to carry out war. It's just a fact. Saw it in WWI, again in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

What the German's did to UK regarding civilians, including the buzz bombs towards the end, with no hope of winning, helped lead to Dresden. There wasn't outrage in Germany over this, indeed at the beginning, the German's cheered the raining bombs on London. Perhaps your mom?

Truth is I think in the main most folks don't want war and yet they will get caught up in it, unless their government has provided good enough defense. It used to be I felt we were generally 'safe' on that road, not so much anymore.

[LuvRPgrl]

Truth is that with Sherman's march through to the Atlantic, civilians were from then on going to be a target to undermine morale to carry out war. It's just a fact. Saw it in WWI, again in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

What the German's did to UK regarding civilians, including the buzz bombs towards the end, with no hope of winning, helped lead to Dresden. There wasn't outrage in Germany over this, indeed at the beginning, the German's cheered the raining bombs on London. Perhaps your mom?

Truth is I think in the main most folks don't want war and yet they will get caught up in it, unless their government has provided good enough defense. It used to be I felt we were generally 'safe' on that road, not so much anymore.

Heck, my mom may have supported Hitler from the very beginning. I found a copy of Mein Kompf in her stuff after she died.

There are a few strange things (I consider them strange, most people dont), when a country starts a war, there are alot of pople, always, who will be opposed. But if the enemy, and rightly so, bomb family members of those who opposed the war, then they immediately come to hate and revere any further attacks against the enemy.

[Kathianne]

Heck, my mom may have supported Hitler from the very beginning. I found a copy of Mein Kompf in her stuff after she died.

There are a few strange things (I consider them strange, most people dont), when a country starts a war, there are alot of pople, always, who will be opposed. But if the enemy, and rightly so, bomb family members of those who opposed the war, then they immediately come to hate and revere any further attacks against the enemy.

Well yeah! No one wants to die or have their loved ones die. Isn't that the point of your previous posts?