Sixty years ago- Hiroshima

[Per]

The oposite of that line ( which you invented and tryed to put in my mouth by the way ) would be that under all circumstances that weapon should be used.

Haha. Right. So if you don't agree with the statement that there could never, ever be a good reason to throw a punch, you are saying that kids in the park should be punched on a regular basis, because after all playing in a park is a circumstance, and punching has now been approved for all circumstances. You are making yourself look a tad dense here.

And that -amoral and moral - lines are yours budy, not mine.

Bill: Ooooh, I hate Greg! He's such a smoochykitten!
Frank: Wait, aren't smoochykittens something nice?
Bill: That's your line, buddy, not mine!
Frank: Right-o.

 

[welsh]

Actually Calculon, I am on the "We should have bombed Hiroshima/Nagasaki" side of this as well.

(1) Yeah, Japan started this war.
(2) Firebombing cities during World War 2 was fairly common.
(3) Terror works to end wars too.
(4) And if it scared the Russians into stopping their in East Germany, even better.

Finally (5) tens of thousands of Japanese died so that the rest of the world knows what atomic warfare can do. The consequence of that is no one has dropped another atomic bomb on anyone else in anger for 60 years. That's a good thing.

Sure, we've had a ballance of terror based on MAD. And yes we have unleashed genie in the bottle (that would have escaped sooner or later- see stem cell research and cloning as similar examples of the inability of man to contain technologies). And it is tragic that mankind can't come up with a better method to maintain peace than assuring each other's destruction and the vaporizing of cities- but hey it worked.

So consequently we had Cold Wars instead of Hot Wars. We had proxy wars where superpowers were not supposed to slug it out face to face (although there were some lapses on that in Korea, Vietnam and probably Afghanistan). But overall the Cold War ended with less loss of life had it been a hot war.

So yes, sucks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that's what you get when you have a bunch of imperialist military whackos running your country.

(Note- implications for a comparison to current US foreign policy have not gone unnoticed).

 

[Tagaziel]

Okay, so let's put up a hypotetical situation:

You are put in a city, which is going to be nuked, and by your death and 249,999 others, the war will come to an end faster than without nuking the city. Knowing this, would you vote for getting nuked?

It's easy to say "The bomb should've been dropped" 60 years after, but just put yourself in Hiroshima/Nagasaki on that day.

 

[welsh]

That's a bit silly. No one wants to be nuked or the victim of such a horrendous and terrible act of violence. That said, when you choose to support a side that is in a war, than you take your chances that something terrible might happen.


So what is worse- radiation or vaporized in Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs.
- having your flesh burned off in Tokyo or Dresden
-starving to death and then being consumed in Leningrad
-having a shell obliterate your family in sharpnel just before they go to church in Pearl harbor
- watching as a hospital ward get butchered in Singapore
-having towns and villages raped and butchered in Germany and Russia
-freezing to death in Stalingrad
-Having your home collapse upon you in the Blitz
-Drowning in the ocean as you get pulled behind a sinking ship that has just been torpedoed.

How do you measure such things?

That said, I bet the folks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thinking, the day before the bombing, that it was better to live there than Tokyo.

I think that the greatest value of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that it taught us a very real lesson of how terrible these weapons are, and in doing so pushed policy makers and war makers to reconsider using them.

 

[Tagaziel]

I was criticizing the "Bomb should've been dropped and you are an ass" attitude, without taking into account what suffering people there had to endure. Not disputing whether or not it was worse/better than other atrocities. After all it's a Hiroshima thread, right?

Anyways, you are right welsh. And let us pray this lesson is not forgiven, as those who forget history are prone to repeat it.

 

[welsh]

Such threads are likely to stir people's feelings, create bitterness and turn meaningful discussion into personal conflicts.

That said, I think many anticipated and where mindful of the suffering that would be caused by the bombings of the war. Perhaps the bombings occurred in part because of the suffering that was anticipated.

To use coercive force to either compel an enemy (to compel Japan's surrender) or deter an enemy (to stop the Russians from using their conventional strength for conquest) requires two things.

First it requires the capacity to punish- that capacity existed in atomic warfare.

But it also requires the second element- the will to unleash that capacity.

By destroying two cities the US sent a signal- not only do we have the means but the will to do terrible damage unless you do what we want you to. In that case- to end a terrible war. But by destroying those cities and the people the US makes its position clear- "yes we are willing to get an awful lot of blood on our hands."

But this also figures into deterrence and Cold War strategy. Both sides develop doctrines in which (1) they have nuclear guns pointed at each other, and (2) each is willing to fire and will fire if the other side makes the wrong move.

That's the scary part- what happens if the other calls the bluff, or makes a false move.

One must signal to your enemy your resolve (your will) to do the terrible in order to achieve compellence (and the end of war) or deterrence (and lasting peace).

 

[Per]

You are put in a city, which is going to be nuked, and by your death and 249,999 others, the war will come to an end faster than without nuking the city. Knowing this, would you vote for getting nuked?

It's easy to say "The bomb should've been dropped" 60 years after, but just put yourself in Hiroshima/Nagasaki on that day.

What is this supposed to show?

I was criticizing the "Bomb should've been dropped and you are an ass" attitude, without taking into account what suffering people there had to endure.

Oh, for fuck's sake, get off your high horses. Up until welsh posted, no one said the bomb should have been dropped. And not taking suffering into account - what the hell is that supposed to mean? So far I've been accused of "seeing people as numbers", "minimalizing what really happened", "having to be right" and other things. All of it nonsensical, but even if it were all true, what does that have to do with anything? Shouldn't that mean it would be easy for you to prove your standpoint? And yet all we see is emotional fluff, moralizing and projecting.

Seriously, it's like you were walking up to a SWAT member who had just saved a bunch of people by shooting a hostage taker through the head with his sniper rifle, puffing up your chest and preaching to him about not taking suffering into account and the unacceptability of sacrificing human life and how violence is not an option.

This is not as noble as you think.

 

[Sina]

Here we go again. Much emotionally loaded fluff and little or no consideration of the actual circumstances.


It is very cheap and easy to sit sixty years later, with perfect hindsight and no responsibilities whatsoever, wringing one's hands and saying that under no circumstances should this particular weapon have been used. But it is both arrogant and false to extrapolate Truman's line of thinking at the time from our own knowledge and opinions and guesswork and pet theories of conspiracy or imperialism, or play armchair general and claim to have known with perfect clarity which would be the best option all things considered.

I was trying to say that this is exactly what you are doing. Only yours version would be that under circumstances you -personally- approve it was somehow appropriate move to burn few hundred thousand man, women and children. But the rest...thats exactly what you are doing.
Who are you to say their deaths were just? -edit- needed, unavoidable, whatever. -end edit-

You put yourself on that "high" position and talk of morals like thats what the rest of us mean.
No.
The people here who are against it are people who are able , unlike you, to see those that died as human beings, to understand
suffering those people went through, which you are not capable of so to you it does not exist, and the rest of us -ergo- got it wrong.

All im saying that it was wrong, horrible. One of the worst things human kind did in history that is full of horrible things.
And it was done for revenge. The men that decided to do it are just men, they are ruled by emotions not reason as any man is.

Especially those that try to pretend they conduct themselves by reason only.

Please don't tell me that american command and probably most of the americans didn't feel burning desire for revenge. Do not tell me that what they did was to save their soldiers that they send to slaughter any which way they could during the war.


Saving lives of soldiers is the last thing on a military commanders mind which know everybody who are not children anymore.

For example, thats what i know for real, while you can only read it somewhere or watch it in a movie.

To try to explain to you how hatred , and suffering, and killing affect humans would be pointless, because you are among those who think they are above feelings, who invent word -moral- so they can snniger at it, and pretend above it.

I don't mind if you have a different opinion, but the way you express yourself, and the way your mind twists everything it cannot understand is offending.

Nothing can give an excuse for torching so many people, nothing, not even things Welsh mentioned, which are true by the way.

Call it idealistic, but i would rather live in a world where some people atleast try to strive for what you call "ideals" than in a world populated by Motherf.....ers (in general) who can come up with an excuse for burning people.

Welsh, i agree that bombing had those effects you mentioned, but, still, i call it horrible, war crime, unjust, murder.

As i said before in a thread like this (and it didn't have any effect) they could have dropped the bomb on Fuji, which would be very visible (and very symbolic) to anyone in Japan, and maybe on a few other places. Then you only needed to make a phonecall and say: Tojo, next one is falling on Tokyo.
War ends.

Thats what you do if you really want to end war with as few casualties as possible.
If you want revenge, and to learn somebody a lesson, than you drop two atomic bombs on civilian targets, two cities that would not be considered mayor by anybody, burn a few thousand people and then make a phonecall and say: Tojo....your ass is grass.

And another to Stallin : See what we can do?

 

[Brother None]

That's a bit silly. No one wants to be nuked or the victim of such a horrendous and terrible act of violence. That said, when you choose to support a side that is in a war, than you take your chances that something terrible might happen.

Let's please not go there. There's a difference between the people working in the industrial war complex in Hiroshima and the ones who just happened to live there. Are you saying all Japanese were guilty of the war?

-having a shell obliterate your family in sharpnel just before they go to church in Pearl harbor

That's a dumbass example in the middle of those others. Pearl Harbor was teh shock and all, but it's not exactly on of the most horrific things in WW II history. It was meant to hurt the military complex, all other attacks you mention were meant to terrorise through slaughtering civilians. There's quite a difference.

I think that the greatest value of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that it taught us a very real lesson of how terrible these weapons are

A bit of an over-the-top lesson. Atomic weapons aren't as scary as we make them out to be.

It's a good idea to be more scared of them than necessary, though, especially because of the scale in which they're available

not only do we have the means but the will to do terrible damage unless you do what we want you to

Something consistently proven over the last 50 years

"Oy, world, do what we want you to do or we'll open up a can of whupass!"

Then again, that's modern international politics, ey. Stems from the Concert of Europe, I guess

But this also figures into deterrence and Cold War strategy.

Unless Truman was a holy guru who could foresee the next 40 years, I seriously doubt he was that concious of how having used the A-bomb first would enable people to build the military standoff we know as the Cold War.

And don't forget the Cuba Crisis. Don't forget the fact that the Russians pulled their missiles out of Cuba under heavy pressure. Kennedy wasn't willing to back off, the Russians were.

Maybe your praise of the American's willing capability of "going as far as we need" is a double-edged blade?

Who are you to say their deaths were just?

Ok, I'm going to jump in here because I think Per is getting rather unfairly accused of being inhuman at this point

Human death is never just or excusable, really, that's why it's death. It is also at times inevitable and balanced out.

One of the reasons WW II was so horrifying after the fairly neat soldier vs. soldier game of WW I was the fact that being a citizen was no safe-guard. This was true of everyone.

Now you can sit there and whine about the fact that the US was supposed to be the good guy and should've been on the higher ground.

Let's hypothesise. What if the Russians had been too nice to fight with the callousness of their own lives as they did? What if Great Britain hadn't been willing to bomb Germany, occassionaly hitting the Dutch? What if the US hadn't been willing to fight Japan and Germany with a certain disregard of civil lives (though still caring more than the Japanese or Germans)?

We would've lost. Moreso we would've lost at an enormous cost of human lives.

Now let's slide in your point of view here.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were wrong because they killed innocent people. Ok, I can agree with that, just like Dresden, Berlin, London, Rotterdam, the Holocaust, Stalingrad, Dead Earth and Pearl Harbor were wrong.

None of it is excused by "the other side was bad too".

They are excused by "it was a necessary evil".

I don't like the fact that sometimes people have to die to save other people, but I can't live with it. I can understand the fact that people needed to die in WW II to prevent further suffering.

Before you continue debating the point with per, please try to grasp that human suffering is sometimes a necessary evil to prevent further suffering. If you are incapable of grasping this point, you're incapable of debating it, and should stop running in circles.

What's debateable about Nagahiroshima was whether or not the horror caused balances out against what would probably happen if those cities weren't bombed. A kind of "we'll never know"-thing, but you can at least debate that, which is more relevant than just calling one another inhuman

Saving lives of soldiers is the last thing on a military commanders mind which know everybody who are not children anymore.

...

Even *if* commanders were inhuman bastards that consider their soldiers puppets in a game, they still have to save lives of soldiers. Because the more soldiers you lose, the weaker you are. You need soldiers, as they're your strength

Seriously, what were you thinking?

Call it idealistic, but i would rather live in a world where some people atleast try to strive for what you call "ideals" than in a world populated by Motherf.....ers (in general) who can come up with an excuse for burning people.

GREAT!

But please keep far away from us. Go lives in some island were nobody is allowed to hurt one another and see how long it lasts.

I like idealism and all, but I prefer it be practical. Tying your hands against effectively striking back at a horrible enemy, like the Imperialist Japanese or the Nazi Germans, is pretty stupid and will only lead to your own death

According to your logic, the moment the Nazis and Imperialists started expanding everyone should just have rolled over and surrendered, because that'd give us the least human suffering?

As i said before in a thread like this (and it didn't have any effect) they could have dropped the bomb on Fuji, which would be very visible (and very symbolic) to anyone in Japan, and maybe on a few other places. Then you only needed to make a phonecall and say: Tojo, next one is falling on Tokyo.
War ends.

FINALLY, an argument!

Per, I beg you, ignore the rest of the moral claptrap in this post and just reply to the final three paragraphs, perhaps we could get an actual debate going

 

[Bradylama]

Well, in destroying a national monument (Mt. Fuji) you also risk strengthening the resolve of the Japanese people. Who cares how many people die? The bastards destroyed Mt. Fuji, we'll kill them all!

Besideswich, Mt. Fuji, a dormant volcano, may not be the best thing to drop an a-bomb on.

 

[Sander]

Well, in destroying a national monument (Mt. Fuji) you also risk strengthening the resolve of the Japanese people. Who cares how many people die? The bastards destroyed Mt. Fuji, we'll kill them all!

And you don't think the 'the bastards destroyed Hiroshima' and then 'AND Nagasaki!' wouldn't have had the same effect?

Besideswich, Mt. Fuji, a dormant volcano, may not be the best thing to drop an a-bomb on.

Hey, if the erupting volcano would have killed people, it would probably have killed fewer than the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did.

 

[Bradylama]

BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT RISK KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG MOTHER NATURE MURDERS

And you don't think the 'the bastards destroyed Hiroshima' and then 'AND Nagasaki!' wouldn't have had the same effect?

Not really, no. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't iconic fixtures of Japanese society like Mount Fujiyama is. It'd be like slaughtering a panda on public television and hoping it makes the Chinese quake.

 

[Sander]

Not really, no. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't iconic fixtures of Japanese society like Mount Fujiyama is. It'd be like slaughtering a panda on public television and hoping it makes the Chinese quake.

True, but it is then a question of whether the fear conquers the rage, as it did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Methinks we can only guess at that, although I'd agree that the chance they'd only be more angry is larger than with bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

 

[Sina]

the more i try to stay out of this the more it sucks me in.....


Alright, first.... i do not think that Amish philosophy is a sane one, meaning,
i do not believe that when somebody attacks you you should do nothing.

in case somebody misses that i will write it again in bigger letters.

I DO NOT.

Secondly, im a Croat and i was 17 years old when they attacked us, and begun slaughtering murdering and torturing everybody they could got their hands on. Ofcourse those were mostly civilians, because that was the easiest.
My war ( the one i was in, not mine-mine , alright?) was led against civilians, against ordinary people.

I have seen my people murdered tortured and raped, from children to old people.
Pulled on a barbecue stakes and then burned alive...
Kids raped then buthchered while being raped, pregnant women tortured, their babies torn out and bashed against the wall.
Parents made to rape their children then watch them get tortured and killed, electrocuted, mutilated.....(and more) because western countrys did not want to react, to fight violence with violence.
And not only that but they forced us into doing the same, and our politicians listened, which is another longer sad story into which i wont go here and now.

Because of it our war lasted as long as WW2.

If any of you have any real knowledge about it you know what we did to them at the end, and what we would have done if those bastards let us go all the way.

So Kharn.... what were you saying again?




thirdly,

i just wanted to point out some reality about soldiers and commanders because that false ....ooohh we did it to keep our soldiers safe...we looove them sooo much - line. Excuse. Lie.

Commanders need their soldiers true, but not because they really love humanity, love and all that, but because they need something to put into the grinder and back in those days soldiers life was cheaper than a pair of shoes.

If they ever thought that sending army on japan was needed they would slaughtered as many as they like.

It was CHEAPER to bomb some civilians.

Than later when they realised what they have done is after all a little over the top, then politicians remembered that nice excuse.

Because it would not do, would not do at all to have the leader of the free world , the leader of victory in the greatest war ever, and against such evil enemies...be just another murderer.

 

[Brother None]

So Kharn.... what were you saying again?

Sorry as I may be for it, I don't see how it relates to the topic at hand

At all

What's next, comparing the Boer Wars to Korea?

Commanders need their soldiers true, but not because they really love humanity, love and all that, but because they need something to put into the grinder and back in those days soldiers life was cheaper than a pair of shoes.

That's just rediculous. Apparently you have no concept of how the States views its military and how much the population influence military decisions being as safe as possible. "Clean wars" are a relatively new hype, but nobody liked to see "our boys" dying

You act as if the US was the same as the SU, just throwing soldiers at the enemy until they stopped.

Because it would not do, would not do at all to have the leader of the free world , the leader of victory in the greatest war ever, and against such evil enemies...be just another murderer.

Why would that not do? He made many decisions that amounted to murdering people. As such he was a murdered. And a war criminal.

He also won, though, which made the world a better place, n'est pas?

EDIT: I *EXPLAINED* what double posting was to you in a pm, and yet you immediately do it again. I will *not* stand for that, any and all double posts from you will be deleted as punishment, immediately, learn to use the edit button and consider yourself glad that I don't take this oppertunity to give you your third strike and ban you.

 

[Jahakob]

Those people who command people to fight to their death... I could never be such a person, even if they sometimes are needed. The choices between killing that amount of people or killing that amount people are choices I hope I will never have to take.
That is kind of a 'god duty' IMHO.

Was the atomic bombing necessary?

If I was the general, and If I knew what kind of devestation the bombs would cause, I would choose the other option.

I would bomb Fuji as you said or I would try to end it in any way possible, just not dropping an A-bomb.

This far I haven't read any actual facts, only quotes taken out their books and articles.

The arguements that says that the option would have been worse are ones I don't quite grasp.
It seems the only option was to place soldiers there as they did in the D-day and get a slaughter.
How about turning the beaches the japanese would invade to meat grinders and turn everybody who steps on them to meat?

He also won, though, which made the world a better place, n'est pas?

Isn't the war that is raging in Iraq and Afghanistan now based on the hatred against america? Killing 70 000 people in a flash is something people don't take lightly.

Isn't nuking someone just the same as shooting someone and then saying 'yea, and that's for all of you! Don't mess with the US!'

No, I am not an US hater even if I think the land is ruled right now by morons. Of course there are smart people in the US, as there are in any country, but I think if US should be our representant for the free world I think they should act with thought and not by desire for power, something they often do.

A bit of an over-the-top lesson. Atomic weapons aren't as scary as we make them out to be.

Yes there are worse weapons but really, a dead man isn't relative. A dead man is never relative, you can say it is 'emotionally loaded fluff ' but that is what I think. 200 000 in a crowded city is enough.

How about just preaching some fuckin' Gandhi?

 

[istec]

the more i try to stay out of this the more it sucks me in.....


Alright, first.... i do not think that Amish philosophy is a sane one, meaning,
i do not believe that when somebody attacks you you should do nothing.

in case somebody misses that i will write it again in bigger letters.

I DO NOT.

Secondly, im a Croat and i was 17 years old when they attacked us, and begun slaughtering murdering and torturing everybody they could got their hands on. Ofcourse those were mostly civilians, because that was the easiest.
My war ( the one i was in, not mine-mine , alright?) was led against civilians, against ordinary people.

I have seen my people murdered tortured and raped, from children to old people.
Pulled on a barbecue stakes and then burned alive...
Kids raped then buthchered while being raped, pregnant women tortured, their babies torn out and bashed against the wall.
Parents made to rape their children then watch them get tortured and killed, electrocuted, mutilated.....(and more) because western countrys did not want to react, to fight violence with violence.
And not only that but they forced us into doing the same, and our politicians listened, which is another longer sad story into which i wont go here and now.

Because of it our war lasted as long as WW2.

If any of you have any real knowledge about it you know what we did to them at the end, and what we would have done if those bastards let us go all the way.

So Kharn.... what were you saying again?

You have not seen any of that, only heard of it, other wise you would had those silly idialistc notions out of yer head. Tough if yer nice story is taken at face value dosn't it show that indecision and idialistc lalywaging is not a solution to an aggression? If for nothing else but to prevent similar events in the future?
Or what is the point of that story?

thirdly,

i just wanted to point out some reality about soldiers and commanders because that false ....ooohh we did it to keep our soldiers safe...we looove them sooo much - line. Excuse. Lie.

Commanders need their soldiers true, but not because they really love humanity, love and all that, but because they need something to put into the grinder and back in those days soldiers life was cheaper than a pair of shoes.

wow all commanders are just butchers whit no respect for humanty eh? Sory to have to ask but were you born stupid or was the condition acuired at leter stage?
Maby walking in their shows for a bit would show you that they are just as human as you but i guess whit yer back ground dehumanisation comes easy, passed down from generation to generation and all that.

If they ever thought that sending army on japan was needed they would slaughtered as many as they like.

It was CHEAPER to bomb some civilians.

Than later when they realised what they have done is after all a little over the top, then politicians remembered that nice excuse.

Because it would not do, would not do at all to have the leader of the free world , the leader of victory in the greatest war ever, and against such evil enemies...be just another murderer.

Realy it was cheeper? Care to show some figures to show how much cheaper it was to build a massive strategic bomber airfroce comparet to good ole infantry man MKI?

Fun fact: The Manhatan project was the most expenisive goverment research at its time. Now chew on that fact for sume time before you go and put yer foot in the ole arse again.

 

[istec]

Those people who command people to fight to their death... I could never be such a person, even if they sometimes are needed. The choices between killing that amount of people or killing that amount people are choices I hope I will never have to take.
That is kind of a 'god duty' IMHO.

Well just have someone else make that decision for you, then you can say how bad they are for making those choices for you. You should praise god you dont have to make and live whit those decisions.

Was the atomic bombing necessary?

If I was the general, and If I knew what kind of devestation the bombs would cause, I would choose the other option.

I would bomb Fuji as you said or I would try to end it in any way possible, just not dropping an A-bomb.

This far I haven't read any actual facts, only quotes taken out their books and articles.

The arguements that says that the option would have been worse are ones I don't quite grasp.
It seems the only option was to place soldiers there as they did in the D-day and get a slaughter.
How about turning the beaches the japanese would invade to meat grinders and turn everybody who steps on them to meat?

Yeah it's so simple by god, just ask the Japanise to place soldiers at the beaches and wahala war is won, no bombs are used and evryone wins
Tough what they would do when the invasion moves to cities and wahtnot? What is yer grand solution, that those mean generals didin't concider, to avoid masive devastation? Maby, when the invasion hapend, the Japanise could have put singhs on the beaches saying sumthing like "Evil Imerialist Yanke, take note war not hapen of bitches we is sluterd on bitches. Thank for understanding."
So simple yet those bloodtrusty genrals just wanted to flex their muscels.

Isn't the war that is raging in Iraq and Afghanistan now based on the hatred against america? Killing 70 000 people in a flash is something people don't take lightly.

Way to over simplify a conflict that has been going on since 600AD. Maby it failed to catch yer attention but the ones belonging to the radical wing of islam still have hardons for what happened during the crusades. The reason why the hate America is that is the most domint product of Europen Chrisitan collture. And is easy for all the crap heads in that region to point at America and say "hey the infadels are rich and sucesfull becuse we are poor" eat the rich sindrom is easy to justify. And not to forget the ease whit wich American collture can penatrate, iam sure it makes em feel small and insignificent and they beeing the "true belivers" it makes em rather pissed.

Isn't nuking someone just the same as shooting someone and then saying 'yea, and that's for all of you! Don't mess with the US!'

No, I am not an US hater even if I think the land is ruled right now by morons. Of course there are smart people in the US, as there are in any country, but I think if US should be our representant for the free world I think they should act with thought and not by desire for power, something they often do.

Ummm... it's 1945, the Japanise started the war by attacking America. What in the above is too hard for you to understand, i mean its not that hard even an American can sort of deduct the logical progresion there. Or is it just more of the America is evil cos they have more than me and are stupid on top of all. Jelousy is not nice btw.

Yes there are worse weapons but really, a dead man isn't relative. A dead man is never relative, you can say it is 'emotionally loaded fluff ' but that is what I think. 200 000 in a crowded city is enough.

How about just preaching some fuckin' Gandhi?

Yeah, the G-man would have done it, the only thing that scares bulies is passivnes

 

[Sina]

You have not seen any of that, only heard of it, other wise you would had those silly idialistc notions out of yer head. Tough if yer nice story is taken at face value dosn't it show that indecision and idialistc lalywaging is not a solution to an aggression? If for nothing else but to prevent similar events in the future?
Or what is the point of that story?

Seen.
Just tried to explain myself, and rectify wrongly imposed notion im some -idialistc lalywaging- peace lover.

At least i know what im talking about. That should have been clear to any at least semy inteligent humanoid at once. But as your example show i was hoping for too much.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

also, we are not talking about begining of the war and justly retalitating , but the end....where the only enemy left was already beaten.

 

[Bradylama]

At least i know what im talking about. That should have been clear to any at least semy inteligent humanoid at once. But as your example show i was hoping for too much.

Yes, you hoped too much assuming that people would take your word on the internet. Describing atrocities isn't enough to convince people of your experience. I could go to ogrish right now and describe several atrocities.

For people to believe you they need either firsthand experience with you, or respect for you. I don't think you have either here.