Military Buffs I need your help.

[oleg]

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.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Ok Thermordyne, I think we both just said the same thing maybe? I am not really sure as to why you took the time to explain all of that when it had nothing (that I can see) to do with my only point. However it is good that you did explain it all as some or many may not have of understood, the soldier support system in WW2 was not just so, still close enough for gold I think.

My Point:
Comparing genocide of Jews to the two atom bombs [Japanese] is not a good comparison, let’s find another.

[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..