- Status
Isolationism is the only way out around all that BS.
Perhaps I'm just ignorant. I'm going to have to ask for more information on the "millions of innocent people we killed in Afghansitan back in the day" and the "300K in Cambodia we killed to try and get the 10K Khmer Rouge..."
Study the history of the decision makers at that time before you say something that is at best misleading and may even be taken (perhaps mistakenly) as intentionally untruthful. In the aftermath of Okinawa and the brutal bloody Pacific Island fights with the Japanese in which nearly all the Japanese refused to surrender (the notable exception being the drafted locals) and the staggering death totals - Okinawa was 72000 US military, 66000 Japanese military and over 122000 civilian casualties the thought of fighting on the mainland Japanese Islands - city to city and bunker to bunker was horrifying. The totals were estimated to be possibly over 1-4 million US deaths and up to 10 million Japanese deaths (including hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of civilians). Given all that - given that these estimates exceeded the total losses of the US in all theaters combined to that point - the US decision to use the Atomic bomb is actually very understandable and quite probably saved many lives.
Say what you will about current fights but please don't use improper historical analogies - it does a disservice to our history and the real anguish that our leaders suffered - it wasn't a flip decision. It was a weighty decision driven almost by desperation and a well established track record of Japanese behavior in war.
Google that S***
Terrorism can be done by States (State sponsored terrorism is the most common term). It's usually used by states that could not win a traditional war against a larger, more powerful advisory.
The same is true for groups against governments. Groups such as Hamas and such could never win a traditional war, so terrorism is the next best thing. Oh, and for the most part terrorists don't tend to wear uniforms.
The big problem occurs when one tries to define a terrorist or terrorism because both are very subjective terms. Are black ops against a foreign govt. terrorism or warfare? Depends on who you ask. What about operations outside of declared war?
The same is true for groups against governments. Groups such as Hamas and such could never win a traditional war, so terrorism is the next best thing. Oh, and for the most part terrorists don't tend to wear uniforms.
The big problem occurs when one tries to define a terrorist or terrorism because both are very subjective terms. Are black ops against a foreign govt. terrorism or warfare? Depends on who you ask. What about operations outside of declared war?
I understand the history. I'm wondering how you attribute innocent deaths of 300K in Cambodia and "millions" in Afghanistan to the United States.
If you're gonna throw it out there, can you describe how you came up with it?
If you're talking about the bombing we did in Cambodia, then I'm sure that some innocents were killed at some point in all of that. To attribute every person killed in Cambodia during the reign of Pol Pot to the United States is not only completely based in anti-US bias, it just doesn't even take into account the absolutely unwaving devotion to murder that the Khmer Rouge implemented.
I have NO clue what you're talking about in Afghanistan. Are there even a million people there to kill?
Well, for the report I did for NCOA, I did the Khmer Rouge. Before the Khmer Rouge rose to full power and overthrew the Cambodian government, we(the USA) dropped half a million tons of ordnance on behalf of the Cambodian government to wipe out the Khmer Rouge. Deaths are estimated at a minimum of 300K. Khmer Rouge strength was estimated to be around 10K. After that, the Khmer Rouge's recruitment skyrocketed, they overthrew the government, and the Killing Fields ensued. We didn't do anything in response. We've killed millions of civilian Afghans, Iraqis, etc in the last 50 years during our continued wars. O yeah, we also sold weapons to Osama Bin Laden AND Saddam Hussein before we decided that we didn't like them. Don't forget in the '70s when we ousted Iran's dictator for ours(who the Iranian people overthrew shortly thereafter), so we backed Saddam in the Iraq/Iran War. I really don't feel like googleing this for you...
yes it was a very different time in many ways. After the effects many of those in power have sworn not to use them. The effects were greater and more powerful than expected.
improper? pointing out the "retaliation" to Pearl Harbor was truly just as much of a terrorist attack as anything seen today is improper? I didn't know stating my opinion which by definition listed above is a fact is improper. Reasoning of fighting a tough opponent who does not give up or surrender easily is not a valid reason to kill the innocent civilians to me. Saving lives? Stay out of conflicts and war....you go to war or invade a country losses will come. That is the point is it not? Kill more of the enemy than they kill of you. Victory through superior fire power?
I honestly expected more pissed off replies like this. I'm sure you also think the Nazi's concentration camps were evil - but the "internment camps" the Japanese were put in here in the US were fine too right?
I'm not blaming the US for the people Pol Pot had killed, that number is estimated around 3-5 million. I was refering to before Pol Pot took power.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
[Sale/Trade] Taurus Model 460H Like New in Box with Ammo .460 S&W Mag- Latest: sushi & pistols
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
