Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenchu
MMM, I dont think so, not in my case. You people are analyzeing a situation, you are useing statistics and figures to deal with peoples lives. Here Samurai (she?) is telling me what a soldiers greatest greatest ability is, when I am not sure, but I suspect Samurai is never been a soldier, and I have, and am now full time martial artist who practices better ways to kill people all day long, and she is trying to tell me what my greatest strength is. Charts and math might be great and all, but when all is said, I am the one who is going to be dealing in bodies and corpses. I kinda hoped seeing the pictures would help her understand what I deal with. They are just a tad different than the numbers she is working in.
Samurai,
This is only true for American soldiers. The massive amounts of casualties the US causes in a war is in the numbers considered grossly unacceptable by the ADF (Australian Defence Force). US marines have a nack for causeing massive destruction. The method they use to invade is part of this reason. The US Infantry resupplies every day, most armies only resup every 3 days. This means the US keeps firepower close to its Infantry protecting its resup. The marines use in 1 day the ammo I use in 3. If they get in trouble they dont try and out smart like the aussies do, they just blow the fuck out of it. Like I said, these are not honorable people. Australia lacks the numbers, but if it were Australian divisions that took Japan, the statistics used would have been a lot different. Anyway, this is not my point. The US gave up, and took the easy way out. I dont think saveing the lives of civilians has ever been the goal of the US, their tactics prove that. Fighting with a bullet and knife would have been the honorable choice. A soldier can choose his victims, even if an american soldier chooses not to. Om, why do I say the same things twice. It is because it is so basic, but you are so blind. I want you to say it, it is true, this is the way you think, so just say it: "It is okay that some innocent children die here and there, and some innocent men and women, it is okay that they die, so long as the war runs smoother there after". Just say it. That is what all your facts and history evidence is saying anyway. Admit that and I will leave you alone. I dont want to humiliate you, I just want you to acknowledge who you are.
Well, maybe they didnt physically lay their hands on them, but the running and burning part is true.
You overstep your boundary a bit here. If your motive is to protect others, you will be able to kneel and take the tumble for this cause. Selflessness is kneeling. Something the US is lacking. Majority of their soldiers would rather kill the enemy civilians than risk looseing their own life. That is why so many are dead in Iraq (civilians), because when insurgeants put up a good fight and the soldiers are at risk, they just bomb the buildings killing civilians too. The honorable thing would have been to approach on foot, hook in and kill them by hand. It is greater risk, but the innocent people would still be alive. The government has also proved it is not willing to endure financial hardship or anything for the sake of others, they are just as selfish. And kneeling to Hitler is not what I meant.
Anyway, just say it: "It is okay that some innocent children die here and there, and some innocent men and women, it is okay that they die, so long as the war runs smoother there after". If you understand what you are supporting then I will leave you be, if you dont agree that the above is your thoughts, explain why not.
|
You either don't know as much as you think you do, or you're just trying to be offensive. The soldiers in Iraq are not blowing up civilians wholesale. Most of the civilian casualties there are because:
a) the insurgents/terrorists, many of them foreigners, are targeting and killing any civilians thought to be working with the Americans
b) the insurgents/terrorists disguise themselves as civilians, fire at soldiers from schools, hospitals, and houses, and use the real civilians as human shields
c) many of the dead "civilians" are in fact insurgent/terrorists in civilian garb
d) tragic accidents and people caught in the crossfire.
I have friends in Iraq, I know some of what's going on there, and they are doing everything they can to minimize civilian casualties and win over the citizens of Iraq, even when it is more dangerous for the soldiers.
As for my point, I think I've been pretty clear, but you seem to have missed it. I'll rephrase your statement, which was wrong, to what I have been saying:
"It is regrettable and sad that so many innocent men, women, and children had to die before WW2 finally ended, but given a choice between probably millions (many of them innocent civilians) dying in a land invasion and a few hundred thousand dying in the 2 atomic bombs to end the war months sooner than it otherwise would have, I feel Truman made the right choice in choosing to use the bombs. Personally, I don't believe the Japanese were serious about surrendering before the 2 bombs and Russia's declaration of war, but a few more efforts to feel them out and make clear that the Emperor would not be killed might have been a wise move. However, it is my firm belief that Japan would have continued to fight at least until the US took Kyushu, and that many, MANY more people, both US and Japanese, soldier and civilian, would have died had the bombs not been used." Is that clear enough?