So according to you Franklin Roosevelt was not in control of US military forces in WWII? Le May basically waged war all by himself?Originally Posted by Montecresto
Your laughable assertion that FDR "provoked" the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor says a lot about your "knowledge" of WWII.
First of all, these cities were not "annihilated". you can visit them today if you like They have remained substantial cities.
Second, these cities contained legitimate military targets.
Third, I understand you would have preferred the war to have been prolonged for another year and the number of dead to have been much higher.
Ok - well try this one too World’s Most Evil and Lawless Institution | Dissident Voice
Of course Roosevelt was CIC. but I was referring specifically to LeMay AND HIS OWN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that he would be tried as a war criminal had the US not defeated Japan. And its laughable that you are unaware of the more quiet economic war that Roosevelt waged against Japan, as well as provocative naval exercises near Japanese waters and his leaving Pearl Harbor a sitting duck.
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
Oh I know. My point was that your link was a thumb nail sketch of it. There's far more material documenting war crimes, imperialism, CIA atrocities, etc.
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
Then your understanding is problematic, because nothing I said suggested a desire for prolonged war. I realise that you're new, but I have long argued that we shouldn't have been to war with Japan in the first place. And that those two cities have been rebuilt in the meantime is no indication that they weren't once laid waste by our fat boys.
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
You clearly prefer fiction to history.
And your a patronising dreamer. But that's been apparent since you stepped in.
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
The issue is that any use of the A-bomb would have killed vast numbers of civilians, even if the ostensible aim was to take out a military installation. These weapons cannot be used with a sense of proportion and are therefore fundamentally immoral. The civilian of bombing of Dresden by the Brits was also a war crime - it flattened a living city and not just military targets.
The definition of war crimes was much debated after the war and clarified in international conventions. But this has not stopped the USA from causing huge numbers of civilian deaths in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Its mass use of advanced heavy weaponry makes this unavoidable. So war crimes continue unabated, unacknowledged and unpunished. Meanwhile, some Americans continue to think that their country is the "best" or "greatest" and ignore its crimes against humanity, and future generations are destined to repeat the horrors of the past.
To you any act of war is a war crime. Thereby you basically legitimize war crimes. But in your urge to demonize the US that is of course a small price to pay.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote