Do you agree with this?

[Spartan448]

There are no such things as "victims", anymore. No, no, the USA made sure of that after they dropped the nuke on Japan TWICE, and killed hundreds of thousands of people without a second thought. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians who had no part in the war, killed without mercy. The end of World War II marked the end of the era where killing civillians was unacceptable.

No, the end of World War II marked the end of needing more than a single weapon to kill a hundred thousand. Cities had taken comparable damage from bombing before, only it required a host or aircraft armed with many, many weapons.

I don't see how it'd be preferable to kill many times that number of civilians in a ground war instead, unless lots of US and allied forces also dying makes it alright? In preparation for a ground war on Japan, the US stockpiled half a million Purple Hearts to award to wounded soldiers. After 60 years of fighting around the world and awarding them, they've still got about a quarter of them left.

Had we invaded Japan, any intentional civilian casualties would have resulted in court-martials, and dealt with the way they were meant to be. You can't exactly court-martial the President if you didn't have the courage to just invade Japan.

A ground war, yes, would have resulted in quite possibly hundreds of thousands of U.S. casualties, and many more wounded. Civ. casualties would be less of a worry because anyone who picks up a gun could be called an enemy, and boy, a lot of civies there would be rushing to grab the weapons of their fallen comrades. Not as much "Civilian casualties", as much as "Crazy people actually given a fair chance to defend their homeland". When that first bomb left the bomber, American morals went with it.

 

[The_Emperor]

War hurts everybody equally. especially when they are illegal and unjust like every war since WW2 has been.

So when my country's territory was invaded by the Argentinians 30 years ago against the will of all the citizens who lived there, we had no case at all to stop them? Especially when they started brutally oppressing said innocent civilians for not conforming to the new regime?

Would you call the invasion of your country a just war?

Wars are started unjustly not fought unjustly.

I didn't say there weren't just reasons for fighting wars just not many just reasons for starting them. I think you proved my point by talking of an oppressive regime invading your country and starting an unjust war, which your nation was certainly justified in resisting.

It also depends on whos fighting so Hitler in WW2 was not fighting a just war, the other side was.

So I am not saying your country had no case for resisting an unjust war.

get what I mean?

 

[Dapsen]

Disagree. I dont follow politics (especially not american politics, why would I, when I live in Denmark), so this is the first statement from Hillary Clinton that I hear of. And instantly she has been labeled in my mind, as too ignorant and plain stupid to be in politics.

 

[metagross111]

Everyone's a victim, whether they sign up to it out of a misguided sense of patriotism or they're caught in the crossfire.

This. So very much this.

War. What is it good for?
....Thinning out the population and brainwashing the masses....and that's pretty much it.

Deposing corrupt officials and governments, defending a country, rescuing another, combating terrorist organizations, war is sometimes the only effective resolution to any given conflict, and it is reserved for very serious situations.