I post it here, because all war is terrorism. -Warning: graphic footage- [video=youtube;6UfmWpxZz6c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UfmWpxZz6c#[/video]
Footage of Kim Phuc - 0.55 to 1.19 minutes. One of the most iconic images to come out of the Vietnam War.
Ja. That's modern warfare, of course, burning children, killing their parents.. civilian casualties, collateral damage, etc. Is it right to simply blame their leaders for what we do to them? The above is like Hiroshima and Nagasaki all over again, civilians who may or may not support the war in any capacity being burned alive by modern weaponry. Even now, we can't really avoid it. It's good that we try, of course.
Of course, American and British propaganda were 100% true while Nazi and Japanese propaganda were 100% false Not sure where we'd all stand on the Soviet variety, though. They murdered millions before and after the war, but they were our allies in the war. Tough call..
The most abhorrent war is, imo, a "preemptive war of defence". Its basically giving aggressive war a new name. Its one of the most (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up manipulations of reality I've ever seen.
Yep, that's for (*)(*)(*)(*)ed sure. To think: That's the way Hitler & friends played it, and that's what Israel wants to do with Iran. Even the USA arguably did this at least once already in Iraq.
The best defense is a good offense. “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things, the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” ― John Stuart Mill
Hell is full of good wishes and desires, intelligent actions lead to salvation not the blind will to fight on, that has always lead the road to ruin.
Are you familiar with realism, in the sense of an international relations perspective? So to you nothing is worth fighting for?
Ill fight for what i determine is right through a profound knowledge of the situation. Wars only determine who is left.
What the heck are you talking about? You bleat on about offense being the best form of defense. How were Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia a threat to the US of A?
See,, you can't even answer your own question. Lost your train of thought or something, or just uninformed?
Sounds great until you consider how the UK and the US "freed" German and Japanese civilians in WWII with firebombing in Germany, and a combination of firebombing and nukes in Japan. Actually, I expect that the nuking of two Japanese cities was a wholly racist move which also served as an effective demonstration to our new up and coming Cold War enemy to Japan's West..
I wasn't referring to knowing more than you about Laos, I was referring to realism. Racist? It was war. Plus, the nuking was needed because if we had gone in for a ground war, more lives would have been lost. We dropped one bomb and the Japanese weren't willing to stop the war which they started with us. It took two to send a message that we are not one to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed with.
I don't buy that story. Japan was ready to surrender anyway, but the US kept trying to set unacceptable terms - they wanted Japan to get rid of their emperor. Oh, but then after the nukes and subsequent surrender, they got to keep their emperor anyway.. Plus, http://brainz.org/10-most-xenophobic-pieces-anti-japanese-wartime-propaganda/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment ... America was really racist and had no shame in going after the Japanese back then. After all, we had to
Sorry, but when you are part of a world war where millions are affected because of your actions then you don't get to dictate the terms of surrender. If they REALLY wanted to surrender, they would have before the FIRST A-BOMB, let alone we had to send in ANOTHER before they finally surrendered.
His opinion is the "sexy" new one. It's controversial and fits in with the self-hating American viewpoint that's become popular. He accuses the U.S. of being racist without understanding that at the same time Japan was arguably the most "racist" country on earth at the time. They didn't commit genocide against 10 million+ Chinese for no reason, after all. He also clearly has no idea about the history of the conflict, the Potsdam conference, and the mindset of the Japanese government at the time; he views the conflict with a modern perspective, as so many ignorant people do.
