Oh, so what you're doing is hijacking the thread and changing the topic.
wow. Really? Lies and distortion are your only defense here? I commented on the OP from the start. You started in with deflections about talking about other weapons when other weapons were not on topic
No, it wasn't. You have to look at that war in context.
No, atrocity is atrocity. In war you can commit many atrocities. You may be able to scrape together a defense of the atrocity, but it doesn't make it less of an atrocity. Atrocity is an absolute scale, it's not relative to something. You may engage in atrocity, you may even have an argument for doing so; but it doesn't take away from it. Nuking Japan was an atrocity as well. It was a horror brought to life that no one had even realized before. It's not to say there wasn't reason behind it. Or that we were wrong for doing so. But it's still a horrible event and a black mark upon humanity.
A city burned.
A city that was the capital of the enemy that started a major war with a sneak attack, and then continued to refuse to surrender when it clearly had no means of gaining either victory or stalmate. Welcome to what war is really all about. But that was no atrocity.
It most certainly did, we killed a lot of civilians. We destroyed a lot of life, mass destruction on that scale is atrocity.
The Death March of Bataan was.
That too. And it can be perhaps argued that it was more brutal as instead of bombing indistinguishable people from up high, it was committed face to face.
No, war is war. Dresden had the bad luck to be in Europe during a war. Life's a bitch, war is hell, and they all burned. I guess the citizens of Dresden finally had a substantial reason finally to regret their votes for Hitler.
What, you people giving up on vilifying the US for nuking Japan as too cliche?
There's no vilifying. Stop using hyperbole. It's just an absolute truth.
Haven't seen any from you, no.
Well I guess you're getting what you dish out.
Nope, I recommended turning the entire nation of Afghanland into nuclear slag.
I didn't vote for Bush.
I didn't vote for your Messiah.
So you can leave the "we" out of this.
I didn't vote for Obama. So less you want to extend the same courtesy, piss off. You'll get treated as you treat others.
No it's not. You want me to be ok with the killing of 10,000's of people, civilans and innocents, over the loss of 3000 American lives. I'm supposed to freak out. I'm supposed to be ok with government expansion and control. I'm supposed to support forever war based on that. But that number isn't unique, lots of things kill lots of Americans. And like it or not, the car driving down the street is going to be well more dangerous to my life than terrorism ever will. So if I'm not going to freak out about cars, why should I freak out and abandon all logic for terrorism? Tell you what, when terrorism approaches the death rates for cars, I'll start to give your argument more weight. Till then, it remains low probability events, and I don't like making sweeping, global decisions on low probability events.
More irrelvancies.
Dead Americans is what happens when liberals take the Presidency. The question is what to do from here.
Didn't those people initially die under Bush? Interesting. Dead Americans happen every day. It's just this cause [terrorism] can be used to inspire fear and irrationality amongst the people. Making it easier for government to expand its powers against the People. That's it. Otherwise, we should be freaking out more so over these other issues. But we don't because we experience these things every day and are more knowledgeable about the probabilities and outcomes of those cases. If we applied the same rationale to terrorism, no one would be freaking out.
Are you voting to run away?
While I had initially supported Afghanistan as legitimate target (never Iraq however), in 8 years we haven't made improvements. I'm sorta stuck in performance based analysis. If something works, keep it. If something doesn't work, pitch it. The war...it ain't working.
Innocence belongs in civillian areas that aren't war zones.
The places you propose bombing you merely define as "warzone" as to remove responsibility and guilt. But they are civilian areas. Apartment complexes, communities, etc. It's no war zone till you drop the bomb.
Armies exist to break things and kill people, not to pass judgement on guilt and innocence.
Armies exist to defend sovereignty and freedom. Not engage in offensive, occupational wars in lands not our own for causes not our own.