02-26-2003, 11:41 PM
An act of war is not murder, and it was indeed an issue of word choice. If you commit murder in war, you will generally be court martialed by your own officers, by your own system, in most Western nations. War is a political act, murder is a personal choice. Manslaughter is neither, as it can be either accidental or intentional.
Of course, dead is dead, no matter the cause. That changes not one bit with words.
You too misunderstand what "100K civilians" is relevant to. Those civilians are the labor force that enables an army and a navy and an air force to stay in the field. They are thus an element of national strength. They too are part of a war effort when nations are at war, at total war. World War II was a total war. I am under no delusions about how much emotion was harnessed to get maximum support for the war effort on the part of any combatant. I do not doubt for a minute that American ethnic antipathy for Japan, and theirs for the hated 'round eyes,' played a part in how the War in the Pacific played out. The ethnic antipathy between Germans and Slavs was not new to WW II, and it also played a hand in how the Eastern Front differed from the Western Front. More recently, the ethnic hatred in Rwanda, back in 1993, had everything to do with why 500,000 died: Uh, Jarulf, ost of them were NOT soldiers, they were predominantly what you so blithely call 'civilians.'
The "Asia for Asians" sound byte represented Japan's racist policy when they started their conquest of Manchuria in 1931. How about looking past the blinders of the late 20th century Europe and getting your mind into why Japan wanted to replace all of the European powers as the Imperial exploiters of China? What say you to Chunking and Nanking? Total nationally powered war is ugly in the extreme, and has its own logic.
The same horrible allied leaders who ordered the bombing of Dresden were those who took down the SOB who wanted to put all of Europe under his thumb. Or would you rather live under the projected, thousand years of the Third Reich? Sweden's hands are not clean. They sold heavy water to Hitler's Germany, which was being used to develop a nuclear weapon. So, as my point was, the allied leaders too were influenced by the raw emotion that comes with total war. a war of national survival.
As to the Pentagon, I know good and damned well what the Pentagon is, I have friends who work there. Are they, in your eyes, a more valid target than the World Trade Center simply because a portion of those who work there wear uniforms? Have you any idea how silly that concept sounds? It was attacked because it is a Symbol of our ability to exert our influence on the Muslim world.
As I understand it, Al Qaeda feels they are at war with the whole U.S, and not just its soldiers. Were that the case, only at war with our soldiers, more USS Cole type incidents, or Khobar Towers bombings would be their method. Whether or not the U.S. honors that point of view, or treats them as criminals is a policy decision I do not get to vote on. A better case can be made for a terrorist as a criminal than as a combatant, since terrorists do no generally abide by the Geneva accords, nor are they necessarily representative of a nation.
Answer me this: how is the nightclub bombing in Indonesia anything but an attack on innocents? No war there, just a bomb that blew a bunch of people to shreds. It is killing to make a point.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two different decisions. Hiroshima was a continuation of the already extensive bombing of Japan, a combatant in a war with the United States, by a 'bigger and better bomb.' You don't win by dying for your country, you win by making the other sad SOB die for his country, or you win by getting him to quit. Why do folks quit after starting a war? They believe they cannot win. No one starts a war with the intention of losing, eh?
Nagasaki . . . given some of the under the table and third party discussions that were being accomplished with the Japanese, there is room to ask if Nagasaki was necessary. However, as the war was still in progress it was still an act of war, since Japan did NOT surrender. When you are at war, you tend to kill the folks on the other side until they surrender. That is how it works.
That war, by the way, the U.S. did not start. (Unless you agree that we were a proximate cause in letting Hitler go when he remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936.)
The message in all of this?
Don't start a fight you can't finish, or you may pay dearly. (A lesson for any nation, not just for Japan.)
War, once started, has its own logic, its own momentum. Wars are destructive of life and infrastructure: it is in their nature. What is fantasy is the concept of a 'clean' or civilized war.
Which is a good reason to try other methods as a general rule.
Of course, dead is dead, no matter the cause. That changes not one bit with words.
You too misunderstand what "100K civilians" is relevant to. Those civilians are the labor force that enables an army and a navy and an air force to stay in the field. They are thus an element of national strength. They too are part of a war effort when nations are at war, at total war. World War II was a total war. I am under no delusions about how much emotion was harnessed to get maximum support for the war effort on the part of any combatant. I do not doubt for a minute that American ethnic antipathy for Japan, and theirs for the hated 'round eyes,' played a part in how the War in the Pacific played out. The ethnic antipathy between Germans and Slavs was not new to WW II, and it also played a hand in how the Eastern Front differed from the Western Front. More recently, the ethnic hatred in Rwanda, back in 1993, had everything to do with why 500,000 died: Uh, Jarulf, ost of them were NOT soldiers, they were predominantly what you so blithely call 'civilians.'
The "Asia for Asians" sound byte represented Japan's racist policy when they started their conquest of Manchuria in 1931. How about looking past the blinders of the late 20th century Europe and getting your mind into why Japan wanted to replace all of the European powers as the Imperial exploiters of China? What say you to Chunking and Nanking? Total nationally powered war is ugly in the extreme, and has its own logic.
The same horrible allied leaders who ordered the bombing of Dresden were those who took down the SOB who wanted to put all of Europe under his thumb. Or would you rather live under the projected, thousand years of the Third Reich? Sweden's hands are not clean. They sold heavy water to Hitler's Germany, which was being used to develop a nuclear weapon. So, as my point was, the allied leaders too were influenced by the raw emotion that comes with total war. a war of national survival.
As to the Pentagon, I know good and damned well what the Pentagon is, I have friends who work there. Are they, in your eyes, a more valid target than the World Trade Center simply because a portion of those who work there wear uniforms? Have you any idea how silly that concept sounds? It was attacked because it is a Symbol of our ability to exert our influence on the Muslim world.
As I understand it, Al Qaeda feels they are at war with the whole U.S, and not just its soldiers. Were that the case, only at war with our soldiers, more USS Cole type incidents, or Khobar Towers bombings would be their method. Whether or not the U.S. honors that point of view, or treats them as criminals is a policy decision I do not get to vote on. A better case can be made for a terrorist as a criminal than as a combatant, since terrorists do no generally abide by the Geneva accords, nor are they necessarily representative of a nation.
Answer me this: how is the nightclub bombing in Indonesia anything but an attack on innocents? No war there, just a bomb that blew a bunch of people to shreds. It is killing to make a point.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two different decisions. Hiroshima was a continuation of the already extensive bombing of Japan, a combatant in a war with the United States, by a 'bigger and better bomb.' You don't win by dying for your country, you win by making the other sad SOB die for his country, or you win by getting him to quit. Why do folks quit after starting a war? They believe they cannot win. No one starts a war with the intention of losing, eh?
Nagasaki . . . given some of the under the table and third party discussions that were being accomplished with the Japanese, there is room to ask if Nagasaki was necessary. However, as the war was still in progress it was still an act of war, since Japan did NOT surrender. When you are at war, you tend to kill the folks on the other side until they surrender. That is how it works.
That war, by the way, the U.S. did not start. (Unless you agree that we were a proximate cause in letting Hitler go when he remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936.)
The message in all of this?
Don't start a fight you can't finish, or you may pay dearly. (A lesson for any nation, not just for Japan.)
War, once started, has its own logic, its own momentum. Wars are destructive of life and infrastructure: it is in their nature. What is fantasy is the concept of a 'clean' or civilized war.
Which is a good reason to try other methods as a general rule.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete