The U.S. just murdered sixty civilians in Syria

[TobiasFunke]

It seems like it's cool for guys like Blarg and Phil if after we kill the innocent we say, "oops, our bad!"

[gotbeer]

4 hours ago, Blarg said:

You do realize the Japanese argument is fucking retarded? 

not picking on you blarg.  But regarding the bomb, most Americans believe the fictional accounts of the bomb as fact.

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

In any case.  Just something to ponder.  But say we could go back in time, and not use the bombs on Japan.  I would bet, we would then have used it in Korea or Vietnam.  More so in Vietnam.  There is always going to be a first in weapons.  It's up to the world to step back after, and say, this is insane, and not have a second.  We are at the point of the second.  And if someone does use a nuke again, either it will be the end of the world, or that country that uses it will get slaughtered by the world. 

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by gotbeer

[Amazing Larry]

I think the main thing that some of us on here are pissed about, is that our military shouldn't even be in the Middle East. ISIS was manifested by us when we started arming the Syrian opposition to take out Assad. We constantly dabble in other countries' business and when it blows up in our face we send in the drones to bomb the shit out of them. This in turn pisses off the local population and creates thousands of new enemy combatants that swear allegiance to whatever rag tag army they live close to. It's a vicious cycle of insanity.

What really blows me away is that our president wants to bring these "refugees" into our country. That's a great idea Barry. Bring the war to our lands. What could go wrong?

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, wopphil said:

Completely justified. Land had always been taken by conquest. And most of these actions you apparently feel guilt over happened 200 years ago. Do you honestly feel guilt over that? I don't.

As for Japan, they got what they deserved. Maybe they shouldn't have picked a fight with us. Or maybe they should have surrendered after the first bomb.

Yep, those women and children got exactly what they deserved.

[Thomas]

The Manhattan project was so secret and rushed I don't think anyone really had any idea exactly what they had created except a few of the top scientists. And even they didn't really know completely considering the way they transferred the material in their car from place to place. Military and political leadership knew it went boom...a lot. But radiation? Might as well have tried to explain the infield fly rule to a three year old. Look at the asinine post-war testing scenarios they did even after the trinity test and dropping the two bombs in Japan.

[Tank]

4 hours ago, nate said:

This is not and never will be an excuse to kill innocent people. 

If they are clever then we must be more clever, not more barbaric.

the point of war is not to kill as many people as you can, the point is to win.  You never win by killing the innocent. 

you'll get no disagreement from me on any of your points. my picture was to point out that 1. our enemies use fake signs to try and fool the US public into thinking we're just bombing anything and anyone in sight,without any regard to where or who they are, and 2. that our enemies will hide in all kinds of cowardly places.

[Tank]

43 minutes ago, Thomas said:

The Manhattan project was so secret and rushed I don't think anyone really had any idea exactly what they had created except a few of the top scientists. And even they didn't really know completely considering the way they transferred the material in their car from place to place. Military and political leadership knew it went boom...a lot. But radiation? Might as well have tried to explain the infield fly rule to a three year old. Look at the asinine post-war testing scenarios they did even after the trinity test and dropping the two bombs in Japan.

one of the more interesting concerns they had when testing the first nukes was that they might ignite the atmosphere. they really had no idea just what would happen.

[nate]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

Try 200 in Bagdad on one day during their holy celebration of Ramadan. And it was intentional. That is the difference,  Nate. The coalition is not advocating genocide and have been very careful to avoid civilian casualties while ISIS makes their targets primarily civilian. 

Dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian center is nothing but intentional.  It is mass genocide and it is appalling.  The "estimates" you speak of were just used to justify the ending.  It is the most embarrassing moment in US History.

[Thomas]

8 minutes ago, nate said:

Dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian center is nothing but intentional.  It is mass genocide and it is appalling.  The "estimates" you speak of were just used to justify the ending.  It is the most embarrassing moment in US History.

What exactly would have happened if troops landed on the shores?

[Amazing Larry]

27 minutes ago, nate said:

Dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian center is nothing but intentional.  It is mass genocide and it is appalling.  The "estimates" you speak of were just used to justify the ending.  It is the most embarrassing moment in US History.

The alternative was worse.

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

It seems like it's cool for guys like Blarg and Phil if after we kill the innocent we say, "oops, our bad!"

Well it is our bad and the US pays compensation to the victims and families when they make these mistakes.

ISIS cuts off children's heads in front of their mothers if they complain their husbands were killed unjustly.

Maybe you can see the difference. 

[gotbeer]

2 hours ago, gotbeer said:

not picking on you blarg.  But regarding the bomb, most Americans believe the fictional accounts of the bomb as fact.

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

In any case.  Just something to ponder.  But say we could go back in time, and not use the bombs on Japan.  I would bet, we would then have used it in Korea or Vietnam.  More so in Vietnam.  There is always going to be a first in weapons.  It's up to the world to step back after, and say, this is insane, and not have a second.  We are at the point of the second.  And if someone does use a nuke again, either it will be the end of the world, or that country that uses it will get slaughtered by the world. 

 

oops.  realized that I didn't put a link. 

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, gotbeer said:

not picking on you blarg.  But regarding the bomb, most Americans believe the fictional accounts of the bomb as fact.

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

In any case.  Just something to ponder.  But say we could go back in time, and not use the bombs on Japan.  I would bet, we would then have used it in Korea or Vietnam.  More so in Vietnam.  There is always going to be a first in weapons.  It's up to the world to step back after, and say, this is insane, and not have a second.  We are at the point of the second.  And if someone does use a nuke again, either it will be the end of the world, or that country that uses it will get slaughtered by the world. 

 

Most people are being brainwashed with guilt about something they try to justify with made up facts. If you follow the island hopping campaign in the Pacific you will see there were never a surrender of the Japanese forces. Even more horrifying was the mass suicides on Iwo Jima of both troops and civilians that walked off cliff edges rather than be taken alive. And these were just the far outer regions of Japanese influence. 

Read the entire history of that war instead cliff note revisionist history. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

6 hours ago, nate said:

This is not and never will be an excuse to kill innocent people. 

 

If they are clever then we must be more clever, not more barbaric.

 

the point of war is not to kill as many people as you can, the point is to win.  You never win by killing the innocent. 

There will neber, ever, ever, be a war where innocent people arent killed. And there will never, ever, ever be a time without a war somewhere.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war"

[ten ocho recon scout]

4 hours ago, Thomas said:

/Pulls out map of the United States

Yep, it appears that you can.

Lol. That was good

[Thomas]

The idea of sanitizing or civilizing war scares me for the demon can never be tamed. Hopefully once people accept how gruesome and terrible war really is perhaps we will finally learn to avoid it.

[ten ocho recon scout]

3 hours ago, nate said:

You are right, it happened and is in the past.  Definitely doesn't mean we should repeat it.  And it also doesn't mean that we should condone it.

The Japanese could have been dealt with by an invasion and the innocent casualties would have been a fraction of what they were.  We just had nukes and were itching to use them.

Completely and totally wrong. Look at the civilian casualties on saipan and okinawa...and rhose werent even the homeland. The people there didnt consider themselves japanese. 

the japanese whether in uniform or civilian would not have stood down....arch mentioned the firebombing, which was far more destructive than either A bomb. And they still didnt quit. 

Not to mention the allied lives spared...

The invasion wouldnt have come for several more months, likely 1946...meanwhile the blockade of japan (almost identical to the battle of the atlantic and the german u boat campaign) would starve more and more people to death.

An invasion of mainland japan would have been equally as brutal on a poind for pound scale as the eastern front

[ten ocho recon scout]

10 minutes ago, Thomas said:

The idea of sanitizing or civilizing war scares me for the demon can never be tamed. Hopefully once people accept how gruesome and terrible war really is perhaps we will finally learn to avoid it.

It will never happen. It will constsntly change and evolve, and we will all keep doing it. The fall of the Bear should have meant a period of peace...rhen the balkans erupted. Afghanistan fell to chaos. Russias fights with former republics. Ongoing terror campiagns in northern ireland, etc.

And a small group of assholes no one was listening to changed the world in one hour one september morning, with not much more than conviction and less money than my townhouse cost me...

[mtangelsfan]

33 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Well it is our bad and the US pays compensation to the victims and families when they make these mistakes.

ISIS cuts off children's heads in front of their mothers if they complain their husbands were killed unjustly.

Maybe you can see the difference. 

This is so flippant. 

Dead is dead.  The reason why only matters to those who did the killing.

[Blarg]

It is not flippant and you are right dead is dead. But when the last grave is dug do you see ISIS offering condolences or compensation for the destruction they created? 

This is a war MT and there really no high ground other than intent. Intentions dictate who was the wrongful combatants. Mistakenly hitting civilians in a fire zone is something the US strives to avoid. The intent was never to kill civilians and there is a good probability that those involved in planning and execution of the mission will be removed from their jobs. 

The military takes their responsibility on the battlefield more seriously than you guys do whinning about singular incidents when air strikes and ground troops are active daily. 

[mtangelsfan]

How do condolences matter?

I think the military is very willing to 'risk' killing civilians.  

[NJHalo]

36 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Completely and totally wrong. Look at the civilian casualties on saipan and okinawa...and rhose werent even the homeland. The people there didnt consider themselves japanese. 

the japanese whether in uniform or civilian would not have stood down....arch mentioned the firebombing, which was far more destructive than either A bomb. And they still didnt quit. 

Not to mention the allied lives spared...

The invasion wouldnt have come for several more months, likely 1946...meanwhile the blockade of japan (almost identical to the battle of the atlantic and the german u boat campaign) would starve more and more people to death.

An invasion of mainland japan would have been equally as brutal on a poind for pound scale as the eastern front

"Allied lives spared"  enough said

[Tank]

17 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

How do condolences matter?

I think the military is very willing to 'risk' killing civilians.  

i think you're 100% wrong on this. talk to anyone who's served.

[the dude abides]

1 minute ago, Tank said:

i think you're 100% wrong on this. talk to anyone who's served.

I think he was referring to the higher ups and not the ones physically involved in combat.

I could be wrong though.  

[mtangelsfan]

16 minutes ago, the_dude_abides said:

I think he was referring to the higher ups and not the ones physically involved in combat.

I could be wrong though.  

That is exactly what I mean.