The US military INTENTIONALLY KILLS innocent people??? Where?? When???

by Stan Conroy 84 Replies latest social current

  • czarofmischief

    Sweet minty christ! I can't believe how much I agree with Hamas on this one.

    Yeah, America sucks, But who else would you have? China? Russia? At least we are less likely to bust down your door because of your religion, politics, or porn collection (as long as kiddies aren't involved). And Islam as a government would mean I'd have to wear a turban and couldn't have porn. ARRRGGHH!!

    Yep, we failed in Rwanda. I'm upset about that.

    But we've got a lot of good! 24 hour drive-thru beer distributors! Hydroponic marijuana! The best damn army in the world! Fire from heaven! Lightning in my distributor cap! High-fructose corn syrup for that amphetamine like rush! SOUTH PARK CARTOONS! More human than human...

    Failed in Asia???? HOW??? Japan used to be a close-minded feudal society engaged in the cultic worship of a human being. Now, they are a... technocratic society engaged in the cultic worship of John Wayne... er...

    Not to mention Taiwan, the international clearinghouse for manufactured goods!


  • Utopian Reformist
    Utopian Reformist

    America is simply the "new" and "modern" Rome, that's all. The sun will set on the US as it did in Rome. Perhaps the barbarians the US will face might be the chinese, russians or a combination of the two.

    But, make no mistake, all powers/empires collapse at some point. They reach their peak and begin their decline. I only wonder if we will live to witness part of it.

  • Simon

    AlanF: When a country surrenders, it's not just a case of someone waving a white flag. The surrender has to be accepted and the point is that the USA was not keen to accept any surrender until they had dropped the two bombs they had made.

  • AlanF

    Whatever, Simon.

    How about answering my specific questions? Or would that be too much like asking you to give answers you know you can't justify?

    I hate it when smart people like you revert to JW-like avoidance behavior. It's conduct unbecoming of an apostate.


  • Simon

    The question is not "why didn't japan ..." it is "why DID America ..."

  • Utopian Reformist
    Utopian Reformist


    Maybe I can impartially answer one portion of "Why did America?". Recently, the history channel (not error free nor the oracle of delphi by any means) broadcasted a special or two about General MacArthur.

    Obviously, the war with Japan was a major topic and I remember distinctly that the program paraphrased the military planners/war cabinet expressing that no war ends without punishing the enemy for causing the war in the first place. It was international unwritten custom to remove territory, demand reparations and punish the enemy for the war.

    So, the program left me with an impression that the decision makers were anxious to send Japan a message and punish them for the war. Just two cents from the history channel about 3 weeks ago, according to my recollection.

  • IronGland
    The question is not "why didn't japan ..." it is "why DID America ..."

    1.To avoid the invasion that was scheduled for November 1.

    2. To intimidate the Soviets.

    3. To justify the billions spent on the manhattan project.

    You may say neither an invasion nor dropping the bomb was necessary and we should have dropped the 'unconditional surrender' thing and negotiated a peace. At the time,however, no one wanted a repeat of Germany following WW1 where they said 'we didn't really lose,we were sold out by traitors at home'. There needed to be no doubt as to who lost.

    It's kind of sad, though, when you think about the European side of WW2. Britain and France went to war becasue Germany invaded Poland. Yet, after six years of war eastern Europe was still in the hands of a dictator. Stalin. We should have rearmed the wehrmacht and kicked the russians out of Eastern Europe. Or, since Germany and the USSR divided Poland before the USSR became our ally, why not side with Germany to defeat the Russians, then worry about the Germans.

  • jelly


    The question is if America's action resulted in less death or more. Either action (to drop the bomb or not) was going to result in 'innocent' death. My point is the action that results in the least amount of death is the moral act. Sometimes killing civillians is moral when it results in less civilian death later; this is not hard. It just takes the realization that the world is a grey place with no moral absolutes.

    You have not proved you assertion that japan was ready to surrender by quoting non-peer reviewed sources or single snipits of opinions from generals that carrers were terminated by Truman.

    When reading history always ask your self who is talking.


  • heathen

    I think what's interesting here is the use of the word morals in warfare . The US has been at the center of determining which acts of war are considered war crimes . I believe one of the things they decided to be an offense deaming a war crimes commitee is the use of military force on civilian targets . So IMO they show gross immorality by the very standards they determined themselves . Well we could sit around for the next century and make up a bunch of what if scenarios , what if germany had the bomb , what if japan had the bomb etc. The fact of the matter is none of those other countries had any influence on international law .

  • AlanF

    You're sidestepping again, Simon. Are you really that afraid to tackle my questions?


Share this