JoMal, there were plenty of innocents in Japan durring WWII. Just as many if not more in Germany. Don't even think about attempting to discuss the evil of 6 year olds and their kind, THAT would make ME sick.
Okaaaaay, I won't. But I will try to explain my point further.
But I also certainly would not be so naive as to argue that in war, the innocents are, by definition, going to be the first to be slaughtered. They are easy, accessible, and vulnerable and even get a fancy name to put in military reports - "collateral damage". And I believe very few invasions of other, sovereign countries have failed to produce plenty of "collateral damage".
So who really is to blame when these six year olds are put in this kind of danger? After all, is it not their more mature, knowledgeable elders who are supposed to take care of them, to nurture them.
TO PROTECT THEM FROM HARM?
? Just asking.
Because your argument, sorry WOW, but this is
EXACTLY the point I am trying to make, is that you are somehow equating the horrors of war perpetrated on the innocents by the U.S. bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and of the Germans citizens at the end of the war to how the invaders treated the innocents of Nanking and of the Jews, or more to your own heart, the Native Americans of your own heritage? Who really brought the wrath of war down in the first place upon the heads of the innocent six year olds who lived in the line of fire of those bombs?
Did a Chinese spit on a Japanese diplomat, resulting in the horrors of Nanking? Or did the Koreans do anything but exist prior to the Japanese onslaught?
Did the Japanese military killers ever consider that their actions in other countries would result in the same horrors being inflicted
BACK onto their own innocents living back in Japan, in an all-out effort to put a stop to their butchering?
This was a
WAR, WOW. A war of extreme bloodshed. And to put a stop to a military force that had absolutely no qualms about taking that innocent Chinese six year old boy, or a little six year old Jewish girl, by the ankles and slamming their heads into a wall, which was done by both the Germans and the Japanese with no misgivings whatsoever, I have to wonder how you can even begin to question that we could have been more 'selective' in our invasion plans to avoid having to take on the burden of writing "collateral damage" reports ourselves?
It was war, WOW. And war is a horrible thing to bring on a six year old with the unfortunate burden of having to rely on adults who create the scenario of their own deaths, instead of protecting them from it by
NOT jeopardizing them to it in the first place by killing the six year olds of other cultures to begin with.
I respect your opinions greatly, WOW, but that comparison has GOT to stop.
As far as the most efficient, who knows but the most EFFECTIVE are home grown. Go into almost any classroom or large gather of people. Ask how many whites, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Euro's, Japs, Chineese, Koreans, etc.....etc.... Then ask how many Native Americans are in the audience. Pretty much answers the question in my mind.
We call it ethnic cleansing now and accuse others of it and put them on trial in the courts of the world. Here, we put the perpetrators in history books and call them "heroes" and "brave". You can do that when you are writing the books in the first place. I am with you on this one, WOW.
Sheer number killed, I'd go with the Spaniards as a country, but overall, Christians #1. They're #1 RAH! They're #1 RAH! They're #1 RAH! They're #1 RAH!
Maybe. But considering they are competing with the Nazi's the Ottomans, the Tartars, the Russian communists, the Turkish, the Iraqis under Hussein, the Cambodians, the Japanese, among others, saying they are #1 and actually backing that up with facts may prove that they are just very competitive with some of the other "greats" of all time.
Oh no doubt, that would have been disastrous for western civilization. Don't confuse my sympathy for innocents with sympathy for a nation, people or culture.
I wasn't. I was arguing who really should be blamed for creating a dangerous world for the innocents in the first place.
I understand your sympathy for an ignorant Japanese citizenry, paying a stiff price for their military and their leaders, who had to have snuck into China unannounced and unobserved as their innocent brides, parents, and children slept back in Japan - much like the citizens in communities down-wind from the ovens in Germany denied ever noticing the stench or the smoke coming from over the far hill. Why question it, after all, when the car had gas and the pork was in the market. Sound familiar to our current times?
Don't confuse my sympathy for innocents with sympathy for a nation, people or culture. Short sighted comment, I know you're 100X more intelligent than that.
Then "GET" what I am saying about how those innocents we are all concerned about were put in danger in the first place. I know you are 100% more intelligent then that as well. What did the German mothers of her six year old tell him when he asked why the smoke he saw in the air smelled funny?
Keep in mind the unfathomable concept of a nuclear weapon back in the 40's. The Japs were not convinced of our capabilities, they figured the bomb hit a weapons or fuel depot.
If they thought that, then they clearly did not care much about who was dying as long as it wasn't them. The initial devastation alone must have made them realyze a fuel depot that big never existed.
I am not happy with the fact that the U.S. has been the only country to use a nuclear weapon on a foreign country, but what should be considered is that the Japanese would have used it on Pearl Harbor and most of the United States with no thoughts of the repercussions at all. They would have killed billions. They would have probably destroyed the world's atmosphere and brought their own people to the brink of death as well.
But maybe that would have saved those innocents who died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, at least.
