The Mana World Forums

I would just like to make my position clear: I am not anti-military, in fact I'm a veteran. I am not against any soldier who fought in any war, right or wrong. They gave their lives to protect the people they loved and the beliefs they held. My uncle, whom I was named after, was killed in Vietnam. I support all war veterans. That being said, we had no reason to be there, whether France asked us to or not, they don't belong there either. If Vietnam had asked us to help, then we would've had a reason, otherwise we were just adding to the crowding and deaths. We can't be everyone's big brother and rush off to protect everyone who gets in a squabble amongst themselves, unless of course it would lead to a world problem if the wrong people win.

jaxad0127 wrote:

DonCBen wrote:And I also do realize that we (the US) have a tendency to go where we don't belong. Vietnam, etc.

We were asked by France to take over for them there.

doesn't affect the ethical justification of the war at all.

And we could've won if the media would've let us.

You mean the same way you "won" the wars in afghanistan and iraq?

It's impossible to ever win an asymmetric war when the general population is sufficiently pissed off by the occupying force.

DonCBen wrote:I would just like to make my position clear: I am not anti-military, in fact I'm a veteran. I am not against any soldier who fought in any war, right or wrong. They gave their lives to protect the people they loved and the beliefs they held. My uncle, whom I was named after, was killed in Vietnam. I support all war veterans. That being said, we had no reason to be there, whether France asked us to or not, they don't belong there either. If Vietnam had asked us to help, then we would've had a reason, otherwise we were just adding to the crowding and deaths. We can't be everyone's big brother and rush off to protect everyone who gets in a squabble amongst themselves, unless of course it would lead to a world problem if the wrong people win.

South Vietnam did.

Crush wrote:

jaxad0127 wrote:

DonCBen wrote:And I also do realize that we (the US) have a tendency to go where we don't belong. Vietnam, etc.

We were asked by France to take over for them there.

doesn't affect the ethical justification of the war at all.

And we could've won if the media would've let us.

You mean the same way you "won" the wars in afghanistan and iraq?

It's impossible to ever win an asymmetric war when the general population is sufficiently pissed off by the occupying force.

When did we occupy Vietnam?

I think I need to move to another country It seems the people that I agree with are mostly not Americans!

And I don't think we have "won" the war/s in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's far from over, and we've been wasting time for the last couple years with people who, once again, don't want us there to "help" them.

DonCBen wrote:I think I need to move to another country It seems the people that I agree with are mostly not Americans!

And I don't think we have "won" the war/s in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's far from over, and we've been wasting time for the last couple years with people who, once again, don't want us there to "help" them.

The Iraqis did, or do you only listen to people who are completely anti-war? Afghanistan is more complicated, but do read up on it.

Like I said before, I'm not anti-military / anti-war. I just know that they don't want us there. And I'm not reading anything. I'm talking to friends who are still in the military: Air Force, Army, and Marines. Yes, SOME of them like us being there, but very few.

That's it, I'm moving to Germany! That's where my family's from, anyway. If anybody knows the Nislers, tell em I'm coming home!!!

Enchilado! wrote: was the killing of 220,000 innocent civilians the correct response to this?

The "innocent civilians" did not exactly protest. They did over throw the government. They did not riot, they did not complain.

Those "innocent civilians" produced bombs, guns, and machines. Both cities where selected because of there massive manufacturing of military weapons.

But let us ignore this.

Let us look at the actual facts. Those "innocent civilians" produce an army that killed way over 4,000,000, yes 4 million, "innocent civilains" in china.

Let me restate that. From 1937-1945, the Japanese army rape, pillaged and murdered 4,000,000 Chinese. And indirectly caused the death of 16,000,000 Chinese.

Nagasaki was a major warship building city. Producing not only the biggest warship ever created but, by some estimates, 60% of all the ships in the Imperial Japanese Navy. The same navy that invaded and killed 4,000,000 Chinese civilians.

Hiroshima moved and shipped up to 90% of all the weapons, ammo, and parts for the Imperial Japanese army. It armoured, supplied, and supported an army that killed 4,000,000 Chinese civilians.

Roughly 70% of all the people, in the beginning of the war and 95% of the people towards the end, where directly engaged in the manufacture and production of weapons, armor, and machines that killed directly killed 4,000,000 Chinese civilians. Indirectly killed more then 16,000,000.

So, the real question is, was killing 300,000 civilians, in which the vast majority of them where engage in the military towards end, worth stopping an military force that killed almost 20 million Chinese?

Oh let me put it this way, Hiroshima, produced, manufactured, and shipped items that where used by Unit 731. Unit 731 killed more then 550,000 people by human experimentation. This included exposure to radiation, diseases, and physical disfigurement.

Is it worth killing 300,000 civilians, that where directly engaged and fully supported a military that ran Unit 731? A military unit that was responsible for the deaths of 550,000 victims? Is it worth it?

It was war, there is no good answers. The Japanese rape, pillaged and killed 4,000,000 Chinese because it could. It thought it was the way to win the war in asia.

Allies dropped a bomb on 2 cities. Because Allies thought it was a way to win a war.

Neither sided fully understood what it was doing until it was over and done with. That is the way of war.

Bottom line is. If Japan did not rape, pillage, and murder 4 million Chinese maybe the Allies would have not feared them so much. Maybe if Japan had not raped, pillaged, and murdered 4 million Chinese both sides would have more willing to talk and explain the issues better.


Japan raped, pillaged, and murdered 4 million people.

After that, the complete destruction of the Japanese war machine, and complete and udder surrender of the Japanese Military was the only way for the Allies to makes sure that Japan no longer posed a threat against the world and its own people.

Intent always plays a big factor in everything, especially war. What was the Axis Powers intent? Simple, to do anything and everything to basically take over the world.. and so the Allies were formed to stop them. What was the Allies intent? Just that, to stop them from taking over. Did they kill? Which is ultimately wrong? They sure did, but that's why it's called war and not a tea party.

Fighting fire with fire was the only thing that was going to "win" this war. Even until the very end it showed that talking was going to solve anything.

Crush wrote:

jaxad0127 wrote: It's impossible to ever win an asymmetric war when the general population is sufficiently pissed off by the occupying force.

No, just very, very, very hard. If you inflect enough death and chaos, human nature will stop resisting, just to make the pain stop.

It is called Stockholm syndrome in individuals and invasion fatigue/stress in cities.

You can just over stress the general population, they will give in. It is human nature. It is not to say everyone well, but the vast majority will.

The old saying, "after you kill off those that disagree with you, you find yourself in agreeable company," does some what apply.

Well said everyone who posted since my last post!

It seems the original post was deleted and so it seems I created this stupid topic.

I didn't.