"Cluster bombs called 'war crime'"

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

By that criteria, I'll still say little or no "carpet bombing" in SEA.

If you limit it to iron. The most common carpet bombing in Vietnam
was the defoliant chemicals.

Maybe there's a more correct term, as "bombing" seems to signify
explosives, rather than biological weapons.

"Rats" wrote in message
...
"cypher745" wrote in message


How many soldiers did you kill with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki? I also notice that you have conveniently left the part out
about carpet bombing, napalm and agent orange in Vietnam.


Considerable numbers as it happens, the aiming point at Hiroshima
was the HW of the Japanese army tasked with defence against
invasion


Yes, the use of nuclear weapons is a war crime.


In your opinion perhaps but no international treaty backs
that position.

Keith

"cypher745" wrote in message
m...
Hmmm. When you consider that I was not born till nearly 20 years after the
fact. And that at the time my family had still not immigrated to the US, I
would have to say that "I" did not kill anyone in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I just wanted to know if you opposed to the taking of human life, the use
of
nuclear weapons or both. It would seem that the sanctity of human life
means
nothing to you. That it is just the use of nuclear weapons that you object
to.

Rubbish. Soldiers have a duty to "die for their country". Innocent civilians
don't. As a soldier myself I was ready to kill the enemy soldier and to die
at his hands if I failed. Dropping nukes on a civilian population is a war
crime.

Or maybe.... Just maybe. You are against any weapon that would secure a
victory for the US, no matter how many lives it saves.

Do you hear any complaints from me regarding precision guided missiles?

If I am out of line with that statement I apologize. But I don't think I
am.

You are.

Could I ask where you are from and why it is that you hate the US?

I am from NZ and I do not hate the US as much as I pity the fools who think
that the US is above and beyond all international law. For you idiots the US
is all good and can do no wrong. You very quickly forget or choose to ignore
the attrocities that the US has committed in the many wars that it has
waged. By no means am I saying that the enemy that the US was fighting was
without fault but to believe that the US fights fair and just wars is a
joke.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
Does one of the last major IJ Naval bases, and an army division with
headquarters count?

http://history1900s.about.com/librar.../aa072700a.htm

Read this you American ignoramus.

Note Ed Rasimus' post elsewhere in this thread. (If you don't care to,
the digest answer is, you have no argument.)

Read the above link and then come back and argue. I suspect you will have no
arguments.

Again, you dodged the question: Do you *really* think that the planned
direct invasion of the Japanese home islands, with attendant *far*
greater loss of Japanese, American, British and other Commonwealth
lives, is preferable to what actually happened?

Soldiers have a duty to die. That is what they are there for. Civilians do
not ask to be bombed.

One hopes you don't respond with either evasion nor knee-jerk "anything
is better than nuclear", because it is an unsupportable position.

I didn't say anything is better than nuclear. I said that bombing a civilian
target with a nuke and killing thousands of civilians is a war crime. Do you
understand now?

Rats wrote:
Soldiers have a duty to die. That is what they are there for. Civilians do
not ask to be bombed.


What utter bull****. Soldiers have a duty to protect their country. They do
that best by killing the other guy, not dying themselves.

You have a loser attitude. It must suck to be you.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

From: "Rats"


"cypher745" wrote in message
om...
Hmmm. When you consider that I was not born till nearly 20 years after the
fact. And that at the time my family had still not immigrated to the US, I
would have to say that "I" did not kill anyone in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I just wanted to know if you opposed to the taking of human life, the use
of
nuclear weapons or both. It would seem that the sanctity of human life
means
nothing to you. That it is just the use of nuclear weapons that you object
to.

Rubbish. Soldiers have a duty to "die for their country".

I sure hope you don't believe that. I any event, you never had combat duty, I
have, and I never felt it was my duty to die for my country.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
. com...
What utter bull****. Soldiers have a duty to protect their country. They
do
that best by killing the other guy, not dying themselves.

You have a loser attitude. It must suck to be you.

OOOH! What a big man you are! OOOH! ****ING ****! **** OFF AND SUCK BUSH'S
COCK!

From: "Rats"
Date: 1/25/2004 6:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
Does one of the last major IJ Naval bases, and an army division with
headquarters count?

http://history1900s.about.com/librar.../aa072700a.htm

Read this you American ignoramus.

Note Ed Rasimus' post elsewhere in this thread. (If you don't care to,
the digest answer is, you have no argument.)

Read the above link and then come back and argue. I suspect you will have no
arguments.

Again, you dodged the question: Do you *really* think that the planned
direct invasion of the Japanese home islands, with attendant *far*
greater loss of Japanese, American, British and other Commonwealth
lives, is preferable to what actually happened?

Soldiers have a duty to die. That is what they are there for. Civilians do
not ask to be bombed.

One hopes you don't respond with either evasion nor knee-jerk "anything
is better than nuclear", because it is an unsupportable position.

I didn't say anything is better than nuclear. I said that bombing a civilian
target with a nuke and killing thousands of civilians is a war crime. Do you
understand now?

So bombing them repeatedly with conventional bombs and killing just as many
wouldn't be a war crime?
That's what it would have taken to take out the same targets.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Rats wrote:
Soldiers have a duty to die. That is what they are there for. Civilians do
not ask to be bombed.


What utter bull****. Soldiers have a duty to protect their country. They do
that best by killing the other guy, not dying themselves.

You have a loser attitude. It must suck to be you.

I concur. To paraphrase the late Gen. George S. Patton, "it's not my duty to
die for my country, it's my duty to make the other son of a bitch die for his"!

ArtKramr wrote:
If the never attacked Pearl Harbor, there would have been no casualities.

If the "advisors" had never been sent to Vietnam there would have been
no casualties. But they did and there were, in both cases. You can't
change history, you can only learn from it. At least smart people learn
from it.

Cheers
David