Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
Hopefully I won't cause a problem by wading in here; I'm never sure if it's useful, so please ignore my post if you don't find it to be so.
|
Always good to have someone else's POV without any personal attacks.
Quote:
To me the elephant in the room that has been danced around through this entire discussion is what the nature of war is. Just to use one well-known example, take the U-Boat warfare Germany used during WW1. This was criticized for targeting civilians, even though the allies absolutely did put weapons and other war materials on civilian ships. Meanwhile Germany countered that the allied blockade targeted German civilians in large part, and they were correct on that but it was also effective against the war economy as well.
:
but in the cases where they are truly necessary, you have to do whatever is necessary to win the war, and the more quickly you can do so the better it is for all parties concerned.
|
The atomic bombs come to mind about "unnecessary" civilian deaths. The Dresden bombing/firestorm is another example. Were all those civilian deaths justified? After 4+ years of horrific war, right wrong, morality etc. all gets very muddy and grey.
IMO, Hiroshima is easily justified. Nagasaki is not as clear cut to me (e.g. could have waited longer than just 3 days). And I don't know enough about the rationale for Dresden.
Quote:
|
While we disagree on a great many particulars, I'm generally with Rainmaker on what the US and others should do; treat terrorist actions like what they are, and refuse to support those involved in any way until they stop.
|
Sound like you are saying Israel is the "terrorist" and US should refuse to support Israel because of their terrorist actions?
If so, all I'd say is I disagree with you as I believe there should be more to the analysis/equation.