|
|
|
|
#1
05-24-2011, 03:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can you imagine what the loss of our servicmen would have been had we made an invasion of the Japense homeland? This alone justifies what we did for me.
__________________
VFW Life Member, NRA Life Member, Wisconsin Conservation Warden Assoc. Life Member, Wisconsin Waterfowl Assoc. Life Member 
|
|
#2
05-25-2011, 12:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
saying what we should, or should not have done back in WW II is meaningless.
There was a bad war, our survival was at stake. Technology of the time did not allow for precision bombing and limited 'collateral damage'. Lots of people were killed. Germany and Japan started the war, and their reasons were not benign or kindly. They were both brutal regimes, that cared as little for their own people as they did for the millions they murdered. If some of that came back and bit them, so be it. I have followed the John Demmanjuk issue for many years. I am on the side of those that say 'he did it', and should be punished. That he is old, just means he got away with his crimes for most of his life. He gets no sympathy from me.
__________________
May the Bonnie Blue wave forever Nemo Me Impune Lacesset
|
|
#3
05-25-2011, 12:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Personally, I think all this war crimes stuff is straight up BS. Seriously, we have rules pertaining to war when nations have nuclear missiles, machine guns, tanks, etc. It is against the rules of war to use hollow points, but if you shoot somebody with a tank round that is fine, or better yet run them over with a tank. Killing prisoners is also against the "rules", as is torture, etc. Well, if a country doesn't want to take prisoners, just issue an order to shoot them all during the "battle". Ultimately, it just sucks to be on the losing side and it is nice to be on the winning side. You don't have to worry too much about who is going to be charged with war crimes when you are the victor.
__________________
The pond, waterfowl, and yellow labs...it don't get any better.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
