Poll of the Day > Is it okay to kill civilians in war?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Kyuubi4269 11/29/17 5:27:34 PM #51:	Unbridled9 posted... had they NOT surrendered they were ready to fight for every last inch. Kinda what "not surrendering" means. You either win, surrender or get wiped out. Let's bear this in mind though. Japan DID surrender unconditionally BEFORE everybody was killed when a nuke was dropped, they weren't actually willing to sacrifice everyone for no reason. --- RIP_Supa posted... I've seen some stuff <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:891289046] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>had they NOT surrendered they were ready to fight for every last inch.</quote> Kinda what "not surrendering" means. You either win, surrender or get wiped out. Let's bear this in mind though. Japan DID surrender unconditionally BEFORE everybody was killed when a nuke was dropped, they weren't actually willing to sacrifice everyone for no reason.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 11/30/17 11:24:27 AM #52:	Solid Sonic posted... Japan was notorious for fighting to the last man. If the US didn't hit them hard and profoundly, the war in the Pacific was going to continue and do more harm to Japan than the two atomic bombs did. If anything we did them a favor because we got their emperor to concede defeat before he threw his people's lives away any further. This is the most revisionist crock of shit I've ever read and suggesting that killing several hundred thousand civilians in any way represents "a favour" is downright fucking disgusting. Japan was already beaten and they were well aware of that. Their navy and air force were in tatters, their allies had all surrendered, and they were stuck next to the most powerful country on the planet in the USSR, with the US bearing down on them as well. They had already communicated to the allies that they were willing to discuss terms of surrender. However, the US had a conundrum, that being that the longer negotiations dragged on, the more likely the Soviets were to launch an invasion of their own. US/Soviet relations were already souring due to strong anti-communist sentiment in the American government and America had just seen Germany divided as the Soviets claimed the Eastern half of the country as territory and established a new communist state. They had no desire to see the same in Japan. As such, when it came time to broker the terms of a peace agreement, the US sent a list of demands that seemed custom-tailored to be rejected by the Japanese leadership (chief among them being that the Emperor had to step down and the Japanese had to formally acknowledge that he was not divine, which served no strategic purpose beyond a nationalistic insult). When the Japanese balked at the demands, the US dropped the bombs - not on military targets, but on civilian centres. You can argue the strategic merit against Japan, but a great number of strategists and historians (notably including Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower) believe that dropping the bombs were totally unnecessary against Japan. What they did do, however, was send an implicit warning to the Soviets, which was likely the true goal all along. By the way, just to illustrate how little the US actually cared about their demands, the Emperor was allowed to remain in power after Japan tendered an unconditional surrender in the aftermath. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:891330629] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>Solid Sonic posted...</cite> <quote>Japan was notorious for fighting to the last man. If the US didn't hit them hard and profoundly, the war in the Pacific was going to continue and do more harm to Japan than the two atomic bombs did. If anything we did them a favor because we got their emperor to concede defeat before he threw his people's lives away any further.</quote> This is the most revisionist crock of shit I've ever read and suggesting that killing several hundred thousand civilians in any way represents "a favour" is downright fucking disgusting. Japan was already beaten and they were well aware of that. Their navy and air force were in tatters, their allies had all surrendered, and they were stuck next to the most powerful country on the planet in the USSR, with the US bearing down on them as well. They had already communicated to the allies that they were willing to discuss terms of surrender. However, the US had a conundrum, that being that the longer negotiations dragged on, the more likely the Soviets were to launch an invasion of their own. US/Soviet relations were already souring due to strong anti-communist sentiment in the American government and America had just seen Germany divided as the Soviets claimed the Eastern half of the country as territory and established a new communist state. They had no desire to see the same in Japan. As such, when it came time to broker the terms of a peace agreement, the US sent a list of demands that seemed custom-tailored to be rejected by the Japanese leadership (chief among them being that the Emperor had to step down and the Japanese had to formally acknowledge that he was not divine, which served no strategic purpose beyond a nationalistic insult). When the Japanese balked at the demands, the US dropped the bombs - not on military targets, but on civilian centres. You can argue the strategic merit against Japan, but a great number of strategists and historians (notably including Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower) believe that dropping the bombs were totally unnecessary against Japan. What they did do, however, was send an implicit warning to the Soviets, which was likely the true goal all along. By the way, just to illustrate how little the US actually cared about their demands, the Emperor was allowed to remain in power after Japan tendered an unconditional surrender in the aftermath.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InfestedAdam 11/30/17 7:05:43 PM #54:	A bit off-topic but I do wonder. I feel nothing is ever going to happen between us and North Korea but some folks feel we should just go in there and wipe out the place. Obviously there is bound to be lost of civilians lives in both North and South Korea and of course the post-war/battle clean-up won't be easy. I do wonder how many are willing to sacrifice whatever number of Koreans if it means the end of that regime. Do some American honestly feel that threatened that they are willing to sacrifice other civilians to end a regime? Will these same Americans be willing to enlist and fight this war? --- "You must gather your party before venturing forth" "Go for the eyes Boo! Go for the eyes!" <cite>InfestedAdam posted [p:891357915] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote>A bit off-topic but I do wonder. I feel nothing is ever going to happen between us and North Korea but some folks feel we should just go in there and wipe out the place. Obviously there is bound to be lost of civilians lives in both North and South Korea and of course the post-war/battle clean-up won't be easy. I do wonder how many are willing to sacrifice whatever number of Koreans if it means the end of that regime. Do some American honestly feel that threatened that they are willing to sacrifice other civilians to end a regime? Will these same Americans be willing to enlist and fight this war?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 11/30/17 7:11:20 PM #55:	InfestedAdam posted... Do some American honestly feel that threatened that they are willing to sacrifice other civilians to end a regime? I doubt it's an issue of threat rather than humanitarian concern. Kill the few to free the many. InfestedAdam posted... Will these same Americans be willing to enlist and fight this war? You have to be a fucking moron to enlist when a) you won't be sent where you want to fight, b) you won't be able to fight how you believe is right and c) your can join a PSC to get shit done you care about and back out when it doesn't suit you. --- RIP_Supa posted... I've seen some stuff <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:891358218] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>Do some American honestly feel that threatened that they are willing to sacrifice other civilians to end a regime? </quote> I doubt it's an issue of threat rather than humanitarian concern. Kill the few to free the many. <cite>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>Will these same Americans be willing to enlist and fight this war?</quote> You have to be a fucking moron to enlist when a) you won't be sent where you want to fight, b) you won't be able to fight how you believe is right and c) your can join a PSC to get shit done you care about and back out when it doesn't suit you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboXgp89 11/30/17 7:19:04 PM #56:	If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered Land war was incoming and they were on the brink of starvation 60k townspeople vs 60k soldiers and many more in starvation you choose nvm that we dropped the bomb twice if you want to kill anyone kill yourself that's my motto I don't invade people I don't speak the language of, defense is my game --- Bloodborne's Themes Explored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv2-IxQ8VTQ <cite>RoboXgp89 posted [p:891358637] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote>If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered Land war was incoming and they were on the brink of starvation 60k townspeople vs 60k soldiers and many more in starvation you choose nvm that we dropped the bomb twice if you want to kill anyone kill yourself that's my motto I don't invade people I don't speak the language of, defense is my game</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
InfestedAdam 11/30/17 7:21:39 PM #57:	Kyuubi4269 posted... I doubt it's an issue of threat rather than humanitarian concern. Kill the few to free the many. Fair enough. Based on the reports from escapees, sounds like a very grime situation in there. Still, I wonder how many "cowboy" Americans actually have humanitarian concerns. Kyuubi4269 posted... You have to be a f*ing moron to enlist when a) you won't be sent where you want to fight, b) you won't be able to fight how you believe is right and c) your can join a PSC to get s* done you care about and back out when it doesn't suit you. Touche. I just find it a little weird when people want to start a war when it isn't them who is gonna suffer the consequences. It is easy to say "We should go in there and clean the house" if you're not the one on the frontline. --- "You must gather your party before venturing forth" "Go for the eyes Boo! Go for the eyes!" <cite>InfestedAdam posted [p:891358788] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>I doubt it's an issue of threat rather than humanitarian concern. Kill the few to free the many.</quote> Fair enough. Based on the reports from escapees, sounds like a very grime situation in there. Still, I wonder how many "cowboy" Americans actually have humanitarian concerns. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>You have to be a f*ing moron to enlist when a) you won't be sent where you want to fight, b) you won't be able to fight how you believe is right and c) your can join a PSC to get s* done you care about and back out when it doesn't suit you.</quote> Touche. I just find it a little weird when people want to start a war when it isn't them who is gonna suffer the consequences. It is easy to say "We should go in there and clean the house" if you're not the one on the frontline.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 11/30/17 7:29:53 PM #58:	RoboXgp89 posted... If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered Land war was incoming and they were on the brink of starvation 60k townspeople vs 60k soldiers and many more in starvation you choose nvm that we dropped the bomb twice They were at war to claim land to keep their growing population afloat. Japan got its oil from the US but it wasn't enough so they took oil rich land. The US threatened to withdraw oil sales if they didn't stop expansion and since Japan couldn't get enough anyway, they forged ahead to claim energy independence. They were in between a rock and a hard place, surrender wasn't an acceptable option when they weren't going to be any better off if they did swallow their pride. Given usable terms they would have surrendered but that wasn't in the US's interest. --- RIP_Supa posted... I've seen some stuff <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:891359270] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered Land war was incoming and they were on the brink of starvation 60k townspeople vs 60k soldiers and many more in starvation you choose nvm that we dropped the bomb twice</quote> They were at war to claim land to keep their growing population afloat. Japan got its oil from the US but it wasn't enough so they took oil rich land. The US threatened to withdraw oil sales if they didn't stop expansion and since Japan couldn't get enough anyway, they forged ahead to claim energy independence. They were in between a rock and a hard place, surrender wasn't an acceptable option when they weren't going to be any better off if they did swallow their pride. Given usable terms they would have surrendered but that wasn't in the US's interest.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 11/30/17 7:34:02 PM #59:	InfestedAdam posted... Still, I wonder how many "cowboy" Americans actually have humanitarian concerns. People are surprisingly well-meaning, even completely psycho fuckheads. InfestedAdam posted... I just find it a little weird when people want to start a war when it isn't them who is gonna suffer the consequences. It is easy to say "We should go in there and clean the house" if you're not the one on the frontline. Plenty of people are willing to suffer the consequences but aren't in a position to do so. You can't legally grab a gun, fly to Korea and snipe Kimmy. --- RIP_Supa posted... I've seen some stuff <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:891359523] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>Still, I wonder how many "cowboy" Americans actually have humanitarian concerns.</quote> People are surprisingly well-meaning, even completely psycho fuckheads. <cite>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>I just find it a little weird when people want to start a war when it isn't them who is gonna suffer the consequences. It is easy to say "We should go in there and clean the house" if you're not the one on the frontline.</quote> Plenty of people are willing to suffer the consequences but aren't in a position to do so. You can't legally grab a gun, fly to Korea and snipe Kimmy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboXgp89 11/30/17 8:10:33 PM #60:	Kyuubi4269 posted... RoboXgp89 posted... If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered Land war was incoming and they were on the brink of starvation 60k townspeople vs 60k soldiers and many more in starvation you choose nvm that we dropped the bomb twice They were at war to claim land to keep their growing population afloat. Japan got its oil from the US but it wasn't enough so they took oil rich land. The US threatened to withdraw oil sales if they didn't stop expansion and since Japan couldn't get enough anyway, they forged ahead to claim energy independence. They were in between a rock and a hard place, surrender wasn't an acceptable option when they weren't going to be any better off if they did swallow their pride. Given usable terms they would have surrendered but that wasn't in the US's interest. Japan invaded mainland china and all hell broke loose that land was never their right to claim, nor where it's peoples ready to surrender to Japan where the chinese and phillipines going to learn japanese? an isolationist nation? yeah ok... --- Bloodborne's Themes Explored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv2-IxQ8VTQ <cite>RoboXgp89 posted [p:891361754] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered Land war was incoming and they were on the brink of starvation 60k townspeople vs 60k soldiers and many more in starvation you choose nvm that we dropped the bomb twice</quote> They were at war to claim land to keep their growing population afloat. Japan got its oil from the US but it wasn't enough so they took oil rich land. The US threatened to withdraw oil sales if they didn't stop expansion and since Japan couldn't get enough anyway, they forged ahead to claim energy independence. They were in between a rock and a hard place, surrender wasn't an acceptable option when they weren't going to be any better off if they did swallow their pride. Given usable terms they would have surrendered but that wasn't in the US's interest.</quote> Japan invaded mainland china and all hell broke loose that land was never their right to claim, nor where it's peoples ready to surrender to Japan where the chinese and phillipines going to learn japanese? an isolationist nation? yeah ok...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 12/01/17 1:41:47 AM #61:	RoboXgp89 posted... If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered Which is exactly what they were trying to do. They had already entered into negotiations for their surrender before the bombs were dropped. Kyuubi4269 posted... I doubt it's an issue of threat rather than humanitarian concern. Kill the few to free the many. I always feel like the scope of destruction that would be unleashed by war on the Korean peninsula is dangerously downplayed in these sorts of discussions. Various institutions have run the numbers and they are fucking grim. One estimate has one million people dying in the first hour of the war. It's not so much "kill the few to free the many", it's "kill the many to free the survivors". InfestedAdam posted... I just find it a little weird when people want to start a war when it isn't them who is gonna suffer the consequences. Why do you find that weird? It's astronomically easier to declare war when it's not you who's going to wear the consequences. Think back to the early 2000s and how many people were gung-ho about invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:891377701] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered</quote> Which is exactly what they were trying to do. They had already entered into negotiations for their surrender before the bombs were dropped. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>I doubt it's an issue of threat rather than humanitarian concern. Kill the few to free the many.</quote> I always feel like the scope of destruction that would be unleashed by war on the Korean peninsula is dangerously downplayed in these sorts of discussions. Various institutions have run the numbers and they are fucking grim. One estimate has one million people dying in the first hour of the war. It's not so much "kill the few to free the many", it's "kill the many to free the survivors". <cite>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>I just find it a little weird when people want to start a war when it isn't them who is gonna suffer the consequences.</quote> Why do you find that weird? It's astronomically easier to declare war when it's not you who's going to wear the consequences. Think back to the early 2000s and how many people were gung-ho about invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow 12/01/17 1:55:38 AM #62:	US is with war how I am with my unfinished projects. ~~Excited to start a new one.~~ --- https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNrfHP9W0AAQK_s.jpg:large <cite>Yellow posted [p:891378167] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote>US is with war how I am with my unfinished projects. Excited to start a new one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboXgp89 12/01/17 10:09:59 AM #63:	darkknight109 posted... RoboXgp89 posted... If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered Which is exactly what they were trying to do. They had already entered into negotiations for their surrender before the bombs were dropped. . No they didn't, they were on the brink of starvation and civil war http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html they surrendered three days after the fact But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." guess not, tell me why America wouldn't have started a land invasion after destroying their navy again? or even Russia? I'd like to hear why? --- Bloodborne's Themes Explored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv2-IxQ8VTQ <cite>RoboXgp89 posted [p:891390882] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered</quote> Which is exactly what they were trying to do. They had already entered into negotiations for their surrender before the bombs were dropped. .</quote> No they didn't, they were on the brink of starvation and civil war http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html they surrendered three days after the fact But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." guess not, tell me why America wouldn't have started a land invasion after destroying their navy again? or even Russia? I'd like to hear why?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 12/01/17 10:25:16 AM #64:	RoboXgp89 posted... darkknight109 posted... RoboXgp89 posted... If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered Which is exactly what they were trying to do. They had already entered into negotiations for their surrender before the bombs were dropped. . No they didn't, they were on the brink of starvation and civil war http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html Dude, did you read your own source? "Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them. American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible." RoboXgp89 posted... guess not, tell me why America wouldn't have started a land invasion after destroying their navy again? or even Russia? I'd like to hear why? 1) Because the War had already cost America dearly, in terms of troops and materiel, and a "land" invasion of Japan would have been an amphibious operation that would have necessitated pacifying a chain of nearly 7000 separate islands.There was little appetite for such an operation, amongst the troops or in high command. 2) Because - as I already mentioned - one of the main drivers behind dropping the atomic bombs was an implicit threat to the Soviets. Anti-communist America was alarmed by the rise of a global communist superpower and relations between Stalin's USSR and the USA were already rapidly deteriorating, even before the war's close. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. Your source was an argument as to why the bombs were unnecessary, which was exactly my point. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:891391485] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered</quote> Which is exactly what they were trying to do. They had already entered into negotiations for their surrender before the bombs were dropped. .</quote> No they didn't, they were on the brink of starvation and civil war http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html </quote> Dude, did you read your own source? "Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them. American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible." <cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>guess not, tell me why America wouldn't have started a land invasion after destroying their navy again? or even Russia? I'd like to hear why?</quote> 1) Because the War had already cost America dearly, in terms of troops and materiel, and a "land" invasion of Japan would have been an amphibious operation that would have necessitated pacifying a chain of nearly 7000 separate islands.There was little appetite for such an operation, amongst the troops or in high command. 2) Because - as I already mentioned - one of the main drivers behind dropping the atomic bombs was an implicit threat to the Soviets. Anti-communist America was alarmed by the rise of a global communist superpower and relations between Stalin's USSR and the USA were already rapidly deteriorating, even before the war's close. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. Your source was an argument as to why the bombs were unnecessary, which was exactly my point.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboXgp89 12/01/17 10:31:07 AM #65:	they weren't fighting to save people they were fighting a war and commiting genocide all across the Continent on people that barely had anything to do with them or their culture do you know what war is? do you know what pearl harbor is? we never got any unconditional surrender bargain they attacked us because they were jealous and racist you nitwit you don't say "I surrender, but..." in a war, you either do or you don't which is why Hitler shot himself this isn't patty cake, they didn't give us an option we started war with them after we embargoed them for messing with the chinese, they were jealous china was getting more attention it's the same exact thing with 'Nam they weren't there to save south vietnam, as soon as we left they started raping and killing everybody but at the end of the day it's the big bad old mean whites that did it what do you think they were doing over there? idiot --- Bloodborne's Themes Explored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv2-IxQ8VTQ <cite>RoboXgp89 posted [p:891391748] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote>they weren't fighting to save people they were fighting a war and commiting genocide all across the Continent on people that barely had anything to do with them or their culture do you know what war is? do you know what pearl harbor is? we never got any unconditional surrender bargain they attacked us because they were jealous and racist you nitwit you don't say "I surrender, but..." in a war, you either do or you don't which is why Hitler shot himself this isn't patty cake, they didn't give us an option we started war with them after we embargoed them for messing with the chinese, they were jealous china was getting more attention it's the same exact thing with 'Nam they weren't there to save south vietnam, as soon as we left they started raping and killing everybody but at the end of the day it's the big bad old mean whites that did it what do you think they were doing over there? idiot</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 12/01/17 11:12:53 AM #66:	RoboXgp89 posted... do you know what war is? I have some passing familiarity with it, yes. RoboXgp89 posted... we never got any unconditional surrender bargain they attacked us because they were jealous and racist you nitwit Oh man. Do you really not know anything about WW2? If you think the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour because "they were jealous", you really need to do some research on the post-WW1 settlement agreements, Japan during the inter-war years, and America's actions prior to entering WW2. RoboXgp89 posted... you don't say "I surrender, but..." in a war Um, yes you do. Frequently. Suing for peace is one of the most common ways of ending bloodshed and is far more common than unconditional surrender. RoboXgp89 posted... idiot This might have more weight if you knew how to capitalize properly. Or weren't seriously arguing that Japan started a war over jealousy. Or, really, had a cogent argument at all. I still have no idea what you're actually trying to say with your posts. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:891393604] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>do you know what war is?</quote> I have some passing familiarity with it, yes. <cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>we never got any unconditional surrender bargain they attacked us because they were jealous and racist you nitwit</quote> Oh man. Do you really not know anything about WW2? If you think the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour because "they were jealous", you really need to do some research on the post-WW1 settlement agreements, Japan during the inter-war years, and America's actions prior to entering WW2. <cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>you don't say "I surrender, but..." in a war</quote> Um, yes you do. Frequently. Suing for peace is one of the most common ways of ending bloodshed and is far more common than unconditional surrender. <cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>idiot</quote> This might have more weight if you knew how to capitalize properly. Or weren't seriously arguing that Japan started a war over jealousy. Or, really, had a cogent argument at all. I still have no idea what you're actually trying to say with your posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboXgp89 12/01/17 11:20:49 AM #67:	Japan attacked china because they were jealous of them we embargoed japan they sneak attacked us it was war not an argument war america's actions during the ww1 years are you crazy? all they did was run drugs back and forth we weren't over there killing train conducters and blowing up railways lol --- Bloodborne's Themes Explored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv2-IxQ8VTQ <cite>RoboXgp89 posted [p:891393996] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote>Japan attacked china because they were jealous of them we embargoed japan they sneak attacked us it was war not an argument war america's actions during the ww1 years are you crazy? all they did was run drugs back and forth we weren't over there killing train conducters and blowing up railways lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bulbinking 12/01/17 11:33:43 AM #68:	I feel to this day we should pay japan reparations for nuking predominately civillian cities at the end of WWII. You cant help where you are born, so you shouldnt be held liable for target of death from enemy combatants as you are not a soldier from birth. As soon as you engage in any activity to help, or hinder, a war I feel you are then fair game providing participation wasnt forced on you by your government. --- Qc_Stryder 5/21/2015 6:58:09 AM posted... Mods- Protectors of feelings vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-wuss-by-bret-easton-ellis/15837 <cite>bulbinking posted [p:891394615] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote>I feel to this day we should pay japan reparations for nuking predominately civillian cities at the end of WWII. You cant help where you are born, so you shouldnt be held liable for target of death from enemy combatants as you are not a soldier from birth. As soon as you engage in any activity to help, or hinder, a war I feel you are then fair game providing participation wasnt forced on you by your government.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 12/01/17 11:35:24 AM #69:	RoboXgp89 posted... Japan attacked china because they were jealous of them we embargoed japan they sneak attacked us it was war not an argument war america's actions during the ww1 years are you crazy? all they did was run drugs back and forth we weren't over there killing train conducters and blowing up railways lol What exactly is your point with all this blather? What are you even trying to say? --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:891394704] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>Japan attacked china because they were jealous of them we embargoed japan they sneak attacked us it was war not an argument war america's actions during the ww1 years are you crazy? all they did was run drugs back and forth we weren't over there killing train conducters and blowing up railways lol</quote> What exactly is your point with all this blather? What are you even trying to say?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mooreandrew58 12/01/17 3:00:51 PM #70:	bulbinking posted... I feel to this day we should pay japan reparations for nuking predominately civillian cities at the end of WWII. You cant help where you are born, so you shouldnt be held liable for target of death from enemy combatants as you are not a soldier from birth. As soon as you engage in any activity to help, or hinder, a war I feel you are then fair game providing participation wasnt forced on you by your government. how many people there currently where alive back then? not many I suspect. back then i'd agree we should have given them something, but I don't believe in people who had nothing to do with the matter paying for the mistake of their ancestors. and at the very least we did give them military protection. the promise should they ever be attacked we'd be there to defend them. not much but something. if there are still any survivors still alive. sure give them enough money to live the rest of their lives in luxury. --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" <cite>mooreandrew58 posted [p:891405997] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>bulbinking posted...</cite> <quote>I feel to this day we should pay japan reparations for nuking predominately civillian cities at the end of WWII. You cant help where you are born, so you shouldnt be held liable for target of death from enemy combatants as you are not a soldier from birth. As soon as you engage in any activity to help, or hinder, a war I feel you are then fair game providing participation wasnt forced on you by your government.</quote> how many people there currently where alive back then? not many I suspect. back then i'd agree we should have given them something, but I don't believe in people who had nothing to do with the matter paying for the mistake of their ancestors. and at the very least we did give them military protection. the promise should they ever be attacked we'd be there to defend them. not much but something. if there are still any survivors still alive. sure give them enough money to live the rest of their lives in luxury.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Is it okay to kill civilians in war? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Is it okay to kill civilians in war?