It is an argument for dictatorship… not really, one person is even more instable, more emotional, then not worthy of the power. Hitler made several very stupid thing, because he had emotional, personnal problem, et cetera… One man cannot rule a country.
he can if he’s me :)
I like to see that, Sir Cystic Crypt :D
Another BIG problem is the fact the governement are often making decision not because it is right, but to be reelected; that is just stupid.
I completely agree with you there, with a few notable exceptions…number one being the dropping of the atomic bombs. Not a very popular move by the president, but it had to be done. (Most people who disagree with the dropping don’t realize how lucky they really were, becuase an invasion of japan would’ve cost millions of american lives.)
American lifes are not more or less valuable than Japanese lifes.
That is correct. Human life cannot be weighed because you come from a different country of origin. I think what Sir Izcoder was trying to point out is that in war, you care less about the causalities the enemy takes and more on how many causalities your own men will take.
@TM:
That is correct. Human life cannot be weighed because you come from a different country of origin. I think what Sir Izcoder was trying to point out is that in war, you care less about the causalities the enemy takes and more on how many causalities your own men will take.
too true. If i am a citizen of a country at war with another one, i will feel bad about their civilian casualties, but rather their civilians than our military or civilians become casualties. And if they lose a few civilians to end the war preventing more of my countrymen (and countrywomen’s) lives, well, although my gut feels squeamish, my head says que sera sera.
So, according to you, its alright if we kill other innocents as long as it keeps our soldiers from gettng killed.
Name one situation we would have the need to kill “innocents” to protect our soldiers from getting killed.
Hiroshima
Nagasaki (sp)
Vietnam
Gulf War
Yugoslavia (1990s)
@TM:
I think what Sir Izcoder was trying to point out is that in war, you care less about the causalities the enemy takes and more on how many causalities your own men will take.
That’s was precisely my point. I didn’t say anywhere that American lives were more valuable than Japanese, but in times of war, the most important thing is protecting your own people. Japan was clearly the agressor, and it’s their own fault that they suffered so many casualities. The Japanese soldiers didn’t care if they died, as long as they killed American’s. Now how were we supposed to stop that? Bombing their city made a lasting impression on them, and they realized that they couldn’t beat us.
“Hiroshima
Nagasaki (sp)
Vietnam
Gulf War
Yugoslavia (1990s)”
In terms of strategic bombing this is a risk I’m willing to take (to save soldiers on the field), just as long as civilians weren’t the intentional targets (even with 1990’s Gulf War bombs did occasional miss their mark (you can also add Afgan if you want).
Yea, but how else to you stop an enemy who doesn’t care if they die?
make them care :)
WTF is wrong with talking to Stuffed Dogs! :) They are Awsome and there better then Real ones cus they dont poop, pee, bark, or make a mess!
and dont ever Diss Hans or Wolfgang again and if i ever catch u putting Bolshevik/Communist Pins in Wolf Gang again i will do more then hit u with a Coat Hanger!
and Falk how would u go about making them care? :roll:
Ewok, if i knew that i wouldn’t have placed a smiley at the end
LOL.
alrighty then :)
People in the Middle East (which is what I assume your refering to) care if they die. But, they are willing to throw their lives away to fight us. Doesn’t that tell you something? Americans can’t even begin to understand the real problem.
So, according to you, its alright if we kill other innocents as long as it keeps our soldiers from gettng killed.
i don’t think i said that at all!!!
