Military Buffs I need your help.

[President_Elect_Shang]

True Oleg (edited in: By true I mean the definition you quote for genocide), but Thermodyne did not say ‘the bombing and subsequent capture and eradication of an enemy’s population’ or anything even close to that. He said “The bombing of civilian populations in the enemy’s homeland is not genocide. It is not a kind thing to do, but it is not genocide”. That tells me at least that he is drawing a line between destroying infrastructure (killing non-combatants) and genocide and not crossing it.

[ December 14, 2003, 16:04: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by oleg:
You can think what you want but carpet bombing and A-bombs droped on civilian targets that had no military or economical value, like Hirochima, are act of genocide IMnHO.

You are wrong when you say that Hiroshima and Nakisaki had "no military or economic value". Therefore according to your logic the bombing was NOT genocide.

In your opinion they may not have had sufficent value to warrant the destruction they received, but the fact is both cities had military faciliites of some kind or another, as all major cities pretty much do, and factories producing war materials.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... The bombing of civilian populations in the enemy’s homeland is not genocide. It is not a kind thing to do, but it is not genocide...

"Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

You can think what you want but carpet bombing and A-bombs droped on civilian targets that had no military or economical value, like Hirochima, are act of genocide IMnHO.

---

IIRC, we warned the populations of both cities to evacuate. The leaflets were dropped over several cities so as to not identify the exact target, but fair warning was given.

[Thermodyne]

War sucks, plain and simple. But if there is one thing I have learned in my life it is that “limited war” and “measured response” sucks far worse. When a country goes to war it should do so with all of the resources that can be gathered to the extent that they fit the need. Iraq 1 and 2 are prime examples. By fighting quick intensive campaigns, loss of life and human suffering are greatly reduced.

[Puke]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
War sucks, plain and simple. But if there is one thing I have learned in my life it is that “limited war” and “measured response” sucks far worse. When a country goes to war it should do so with all of the resources that can be gathered to the extent that they fit the need. Iraq 1 and 2 are prime examples. By fighting quick intensive campaigns, loss of life and human suffering are greatly reduced.

supporting your arguement from the other side of the coin, we have Somolia and similar conflicts..

[CNCRaymond]

Take out all those women and children with smallpox infected blankets, before they breed another generation of redskins.

How dare they be on our land before we ever knew it exsisted!

(This is one of those American historical facts that does make me ill to my core.)

[Puke]

of course it was OUR land, they didnt believe in land ownership. Hawaii and Panama on the otherhand, those were definitly other peoples land that we just sort of took. California and Texas too, for that matter.

If history teaches us anything, its that might makes right. We need a warior culture akin to that of feudal Japan, but less isolationist. All this goodie-goodie stuff aint good for the empire.