It is rather easy to say from a confortable seat in the US that North Koreans are legitimizing their Government, but come on. As for your situations, neither sanctions nor treaties compare in any way to being blown up or burned to death. You still did not answer my point either; do you think both sides are justified to target civilians or only yours?
Boozha, I too wondered why they can't see that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. For only a second I wondered.
This is translatable to: "my unconvincing arguments have not swayed you. I give up and blame you" Thats okay ragic, don't hurt yourself.
I think the bomb drops are a perspective thing. Yeah, many innocents died, but not Americans. That is what the priority was. Americans first used total war against ourselves in the American Civil War. It's a strategy that's very effective but very cruel. Of course people are going to largely hate the idea. With as liberal as society has gotten maybe more than largely. But war is not for them. War is not for the civilian, yet they are always ready with the mouth and never with the pledge. You can whine about it all you want. It's what happened. We were not the aggressors. And I probably have friends that wouldn't be here if we were forced to take Japan by beach. While I don't enjoy war and death, I've seen them both with my own two eyes and know it for what it is. I'm just so damn thankful to be a part of my country and I'd do anything to save the lives of my countrymen, so I'll not criticize those that did.
I hate that kind of military worship. The fact that I am not willing to kill people in the interest of others does not make me any less qualified to talk about their sheanigans either. War is not for the civilian? Don't bring it to him then, thank you very much.
You can call yourself qualified if it makes you feel better, you're qualified to express your opinion, but that's where it ends. Talking about stuff you know nothing about. Nothing new.
Baskitkase, your condescension does not help your argument but rather lets you look like a snoddy fool that lacks arguments other than "muh military".
ok, well, backing it up a bit Tarth already ran through how it was more or less a calculation for the US to go after civilian targets. fewer casualties all round due to the bomb is how we like to think of it, and it's how the numbers look (though i'm no expert). add to that that the US was expecting many of those same civilians to resist quite fiercely- i guess if they were expected to be dead either way you may as well shoot for killing the lower number. you referenced 9/11 earlier- exactly what war was that a part of? you may be able to answer that question. exactly what conflict did that end? was that a calculation to limit the number of total casualties, or to literally blow up the numbers? that's the difference, to me. in other words, strikes on civilian targets are acceptable so long as they'd result in hugely lower casualties than otherwise, with ending the conflict being a bonus achievement. but if you're killing people willy nilly because they offend you, or to send a message that doesn't get heard, i start questioning it. this is putting nationalism to the side (ie "us against them") also booz, i like you well enough, but i'm fairly sure most of the residents of the forums don't give a flying @#(! about the impression they leave on you by now. dunno if you noticed or not.
I cannot think of a reason people would dislike me for that I would not see as worth it. Your arguments are finally a bit better than the others. Still, as I said before, I don't buy the humanitarian reasoning when it would have been possible to pressure a diplomatic solution, especially after the Soviet Union entered the war, and as Japans military power was absolutely broken. With my somewhat impolite reference to terrorism you gave the usual answer - that it is different because in one case there was a war declared by two countries and in the other case not. I don't really see why that difference would be relevant, though. On the one side you have the claim that your actions prevented more deaths, on the other side you have similar claims this stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks Personally, I think both justifications are incredibly lacking. I know that many US Americans like to think the way that it was necessary and even helpful to bomb civilian targets, but I know hardly an European who would agree to that idea.
I suppose not unjustifiedly attacking another nation is a good thing indeed, though I am not sure what else you meant to imply ...
