Forums | MacLife

eh, no. it wouldn't matter if we were mighty. just christian.

what are you? some sorta communist thingee?

Why not a targeted airborne attack on military/government targets?

There is no excuse that I can think of that supports killing so many civilians.

Why not a targeted airborne attack on military/government targets?

There is no excuse that I can think of that supports killing so many civilians.

I am still looking for the text, in skool (intentional) I was told that one was a submarine naval base and the other was a critical industrial center.

I have to withdraw this statement because I cannot find evidence

Funny how Dresden never comes up when people talk about mass civilian casualties.

Yep. Or the firebombing of Tokyo. The longest march (forgot official name, the one where we forced the indians to march damn near across the country)
Many many others

The invasion of Iraq had plenty of justification; the liberals just choose to ignore such evidence and post asinine topics to smear George Bush. This is what the liberals are reduced to ...smear tactics! It is so pathetic!

God bless President George Bush and the 101st Airborne!

Camp David

And making Ad Nauseum responses in the WEEE hours of the morning makes you their better? 

I think that comparing Bush and Truman to Stalin and Mao is slightly overstating it.

I got on this track due to another topic...

Given that our invasion of Iraq didn't have any justification (even if Iraq had chemical WMD - that's no justification), and given the hundreds of dead American soldiers and thousands of dead civilians... is it not possible to view Bush as a serial killer of sorts?

I'm not limiting this to Bush, either. What about American politicians who sold arms to Iran/Iraq in the 80s? What about Truman with his dual A-bomb massacres? Look at Stalin. He ordered the execution of perhaps hundreds of thousands. Hitler. The "Communist" party in China adopted Mao reforms that resulted in massive starvation - killing large numbers.

This question remind me of the difference between the treatment of corporate/government criminals as opposed to other criminals. The doctrine of "might makes right" seems to pervade all aspects of human society. Executive helps kill company in order to get big profits - loses job but gains millions. Man steals loaf of bread and goes to jail or even gets his hand chopped off.

You may not agree with the war but that doesn't make Bush a serial killer or nazi. All this exxagerated hyperbole makes the left sound like a bunch of complete wacko's. Sadaam sounds more like a serial killer if you want to make  comparisons and there are mass graves and meat grinders to back it up. If nothing whatsoever had been done and we continued bickering amongst the UN for the next year a huge number of civilians would have died from the sanctions that had been imposed previously. In fact, bringing the war to the Iraqis probably brought fewer casualties due to the fact that Iraqis can now access hospitals and get current medicine.

Dont even compare this action to Hiroshima and Nagisaki. Those two bombs led to hundreds of thousands dead. This current action, in comparison is extremely slight. Nazism led to millions of dead. Stalin, millions more. Even sadaam left to his own devices brought about the death of hundreds of thousands.
Get some perspective.

I got on this track due to another topic...

Given that our invasion of Iraq didn't have any justification (even if Iraq had chemical WMD - that's no justification), and given the hundreds of dead American soldiers and thousands of dead civilians... is it not possible to view Bush as a serial killer of sorts?

I'm not limiting this to Bush, either. What about American politicians who sold arms to Iran/Iraq in the 80s? What about Truman with his dual A-bomb massacres? Look at Stalin. He ordered the execution of perhaps hundreds of thousands. Hitler. The "Communist" party in China adopted Mao reforms that resulted in massive starvation - killing large numbers.

This question remind me of the difference between the treatment of corporate/government criminals as opposed to other criminals. The doctrine of "might makes right" seems to pervade all aspects of human society. Executive helps kill company in order to get big profits - loses job but gains millions. Man steals loaf of bread and goes to jail or even gets his hand chopped off.

You may not agree with the war but that doesn't make Bush a serial killer or nazi. All this exxagerated hyperbole makes the left sound like a bunch of complete wacko's. Sadaam sounds more like a serial killer if you want to make  comparisons and there are mass graves and meat grinders to back it up. If nothing whatsoever had been done and we continued bickering amongst the UN for the next year a huge number of civilians would have died from the sanctions that had been imposed previously. In fact, bringing the war to the Iraqis probably brought fewer casualties due to the fact that Iraqis can now access hospitals and get current medicine.

Dont even compare this action to Hiroshima and Nagisaki. Those two bombs led to hundreds of thousands dead. This current action, in comparison is extremely slight. Nazism led to millions of dead. Stalin, millions more. Even sadaam left to his own devices brought about the death of hundreds of thousands.
Get some perspective.

   I opposed the war because I didn't think we could bring lasting, positive change, and I'm still doubtful.  But it does no good for doves like me to act hysterical.

Funny how Dresden never comes up when people talk about mass civilian casualties.

Because Dresden was a mistake.  They didn't realize that so many people would die and the minute Churchill saw the results, he immediately threw out the possibility of firebombing another city.  The US on the other hand saw what a great job the atomic bomb did in one city, so they dropped another one.

As I understand it, Churchill was the only person who supported "bomber" Harris in his policy of "area bombing" of civilian targets. I thought that Churchill pushed for the Dresden (and other fire raids) over the objections of the Americans. Likewise, the Toyko fire raids were the result of LeMay's determination. I could be wrong about all this, but there's no doubt there was plenty of opposition to the Dresden-style raids.

Actually, in many ways Churchill was one cold-hearted old smurf.

You mean the Trail of Tears?

In regards to firebombing Tokyo, firebombing was used against Japanese cities because their industries were very spead out around, and sometimes in, houses. Since most everything was paper and wood, and the Pacific Jet Stream made accurate bombing very hard (fly into it, and you hardly move, fly with it, and you hardly have time to drop your bombs), firebombing was pretty much the only way to significantly damage the Japanese industries.

Le May did not come to the desicion lightly.

And as for a target airborne attack, well that's really just silly. This was world war two, XYZ. No smart bombs. No GPS. If a bomb fell within a mile of its target, it was classified as a hit. That's why our bombing raids used hundreds and hundreds of planes. We needed enough just to make up on the low odds of hitting.

Actually, in many ways Churchill was one cold-hearted old smurf.

For the record, Churchill would at times slip into chronic depression and overexert himself to manage his mental state.  I don't know why, but that somehow seems like it might have an effect on his decisions.

Just reading the topic makes me shake my head.

Are lefties this disillusioned?

Just reading the topic makes me shake my head.

Are lefties this disillusioned?

Mostly just XYZ

Indeed.