I'm not against Russia, I'm just not going to agree with the notion it was they who beat Germany all alone, and nobody else did anything but watch. You can think what you like, I'm just not going to buy into it..

Tenchu: When the US is determined and motivated in a war, it goes all out, General Sherman called it Total War. You may find that barbaric, and that's your right to think thus. However, winning is more important than trying to die nobly. The Victor's can dictate how the peace will be, the dead can't do anything.

Before you lamblast me about how the US did this and that to some country, remember that America practiced Total War against itself durring the Civil War, essentially the US was the first test case for it's new style. We certainly won't be worrid about bringing such destruction to some other country, if we were so willing to do it to ourselves.

Our reasoning is simple. If I want my family to have a safe liveing enviroment, where they can watch thier football, go to thier proms and what have you. I must ensure that my enemy doesn't live to change it. The US will do what ever it takes to protect thier own. Think of it as a mother bear protecting her cub, morality doesn't concern her at that moment, just protecting her cub does.

No I'm not. Who told you that?

Dude, refusing to kill innocent people is not childish. This is how some of the most effective Warriors in history functioned for nearly 1,000 years.

And what I'm talking about is what terrorists do not want you to do. They want America to get all fired up and storm in with flame bombs and white gas and kill everyone.

Islamic recruiting is thriving on the carelessness of Israel and America and their war crimes. I would go as far as to say every child or woman that is murdered by Israel and America is ten new recruits for Osama.

It's evil that thrives on the blind determination of fools to win, not the other way around.

I can rest easily on this arguement as I have many times before, anyway; there's nothing wrong with saying it's cowardly to kill innocent people.

I never overlooked anything.

I said America has simply done the same thing. You're the one overlooking that.

This is the most selfish and evil thing a person can say.

These are the words that will justify dropping 1,000 nuclear bombs on Asia. Think about that and tell me who's got it right again.

Fighting like this does not produce what I'd say constitutes a victory.

This is the same as the example of saying the enemy hides inside a school, so you have the right to blow it up when it's packed. It's just more cowardice. Events should be considered and conducted independantly, free from bias; only this way can you do it properly and honorably.

Anyway, wasn't the civil war about fighting the British back more so?

EDIT: Wait a minute, there was no chemical weapons, flame bombing, destructive air raids, mass slaughter of civilians in the American civil war, was there?

I'm not talking about war, I'm talking about killing innocent people.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure by the clear definition of every religion (or at least what their prophets say, not their leaders), you guys are all evil.

But I never said that.

My mistake, Tenchu. In my irritation over the content of this thread I did not re-check your location. I certainly know the difference between the the Phillipines and Thailand, as my father was involved in government work in both.

But the premise is the same. Anyone who starts condemning acts of other nations during war, needs to acknowledge for their own country's history of similar atrocities first.

Except in the more racists and backwater areas of the U.S., Sherman's March to the Sea with his policy of total destruction is condemned in most American History texts. This tactic is taught as having been effective, but morally wrong. And the "Scorched Earth" strategy predates even the founding of America by centuries, so it was no test case for anyone other than Grant's planning.

And if you think it doesn't raise concern whenever this method of destruction is considered, you must be severely editing your political history and current events.

For example, the bombing of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is rarely regarded as "winning" WWII or a victorious act. In fact, such a reference would be considered deplorable even within the ranks of the U.S. Armed Forces. Instead it is acknowledged only as the acts which stopped the Japanese aggression.

This may seem like merely semantics, but there is a vast difference between a nation being defeated in battle, and standing down to spare loss of life. They were not defeated. The Germans and Italians were defeated. But the Japanese chose to end the war to spare their people. That takes far more courage and intelligence to than to wage war.

Well, lucky for my sake I've no country I really belong to, then, isn't it?

It's irrelevant, anyway; nobody is tied to a certain way of thinking just because of what their country has done.

That's true; terrorists won WW2 with the Japanese.