It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bat Bomb

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

I'm not sure about this idea that "if country A kills a lot of country B's civilians with a nuclear (or other) weapon, it's morally acceptable if it saves the lives of soldiers from country A". It seems to me that the only people who would really approve are people in country A.


except that the dropping of bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki actually saved civilian lives as well. if you look at the battle of okinawa, you will find that the japanese were so brainwashed into believing that the US would rape and kill all civilians in their path that we spent half of our time trying to keep mothers from throwing their children off of cliffs. if we had invaded mainland japan it would have been a bloodbath. women and children would have taken up arms against us, and the total death toll would have been in the millions on both sides, instead just the tens of thousands that were killed due to the atomic bombs.




posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

The mine-equipped dogs were actually highly successful according to Suvorov, I suspect the story about them blowing up Russian tanks was a bit of Western propaganda. The Cat bomb sounds like a myth.


No they weren't effective at all, hence the reason why after a few months they weren't used. Suvorov ( if it's the same guy who wrote a book about the Spetznaz ) is widely regareded as a charlatan, who writes more fantasy than fact. Any credible author who mentions the dog mines, says they were miserable failures born of desperation.

I have come across the cat bomb in several books, about $50 000 was allocated to research and testing.



I'm not sure about this idea that "if country A kills a lot of country B's civilians with a nuclear (or other) weapon, it's morally acceptable if it saves the lives of soldiers from country A". It seems to me that the only people who would really approve are people in country A.


You mean like the German civilains in WWII killed by indescriminate city busting ? Your statement doesn't make any sense
Of course people don't like being killed.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by mad scientist]

[edit on 18-1-2006 by mad scientist]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Screw it. Just ain't worth the hassle.

[edit on 1/18/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Sorry for the late response, been a bit busy handling things off the board lately,


OK, as you can see we've been waiting for you to tell us when WWII finished, not that several other people haven't already covered this, lol.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Hey THANKS for the fracking sarcasm. Nice contribution there. SORRY for attempting to CONTRIBUTE something.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Speaking of strange weapons....

A few years ago someone on ATS brought up a Japanese WW2 prototype bomb. It was a bomb that consisted of a clay pot with bubonic plague infested fleas inside of it. As you can imagine, the bomb would crack open on impact, and the black death would be released. As all of the Japanese weapons, it was tested on China.

Not surprisingly, the Bubonic plague still exists in several remote areas in China. Coincidence???



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
It still exists in most places in the world. There are several cases in the US every year, just they can treat it now and most cases don't get out of hand, so you just don't hear about it much.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
A few years ago someone on ATS brought up a Japanese WW2 prototype bomb. It was a bomb that consisted of a clay pot with bubonic plague infested fleas inside of it. As you can imagine, the bomb would crack open on impact, and the black death would be released. As all of the Japanese weapons, it was tested on China.


That was the Japanese porcelein bomb. They came in several different types and were used by Unit 731 - the notorious Japanese chem and bio warfare unit. SOmetiimes after a village had been infected Unit 731 members would collect villagers and perform vivsections on them.



Not surprisingly, the Bubonic plague still exists in several remote areas in China. Coincidence???


They also released thousands of desease infected animals, before the SOviets found te facilites, most notably Pingfan in Manchuria.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Snafu,

How many bats could be dropped at once and did they have some safing mechanism to contain their spread so that they could not (for example) light entire forests ablaze?

If not then they are indiscriminate weapons as well as cruel ones and in general, I'm against the use of dumb animals for 'special mission' type attacks that we would not force the /vicious beasts/ that walk on two legs to undertake.

Having said that, make a comparison with the B-29. On a maximum range mission (combat radius on the order of 2,500 miles) it could carry but a paltry 2,000lbs of bombs. But where each of those bombs was an M-19 cluster of some 220lbs, that's 324 M69 6lb incendiary weapons.

/At a guess/ I would say that we could outproduce the bats and to put the devastation into scale, I doubt seriously if even modern fire fighting techniques could save the heart of a city if ONE such bomber dropped a full 12,000lb load of such weapons.

OTOH, there is another case, almost exactly like this one, in which either ol' Genghis hisself or perhaps Tammerlane decided to attach burning rags to the tails of swallows and thus 'convinced' a stubbornly resistant city to surrender. Of course he then slaughtered them all anyway as an example of what happens when you stand up to a murdering savage.

Why you would want to be 'just as clever' I do not know.

In any event, there was absolutely no justification for the deaths of perhaps as many as 500,000 Japanese in the firebombings. Simply because they, like our own civvies, were building weapons for uncle Hiro.

Because we could have (and indeed /were/) STARVED THEM TO DEATH, slowly, simply by attacking their transport and rice crops. Leaving the option of a six month blockade leading to a rescue food effort that made us look merciful rather than vae victis bombastic in our stated justifications.

In point of truth, the total number of casualties from the inital Operation Coronet invasion of Kyushu were NEVER 'estimated in the 1 million range'. But merely 20-50,000. And while that is indeed a large number, it is no worse than Normandy. And it would have given us 24:7 total air supremacy (with a consequent hike in sortie rates against POINT targets) with the vast numbers of tacair (P-47/51/38) that could have been flown in.

Get used to this FACT of life. Our 'greatest generation' butchered because we liked it. And when plain old chemical incendiaries were not enough dropped canned sunlight like little boys burning ants with a magnifying lens, 'just to see what it would look like'.

It didn't help that the Japanese had made themselves out to be Bushido Suicide Cultists at every level of society. But just as when a little child hits and slaps at you, you DO NOT exercise your adult strength to beat him or her senseless or dead.

You hold them at arms length with a _contempt of engagement_ until they understand that they are just hurting their own pride. And then you deal with the aftermath.

For the Japanese that post-war life debt in the city war comes to roughly a million casualties and 100 cities completely burnt out by the firebombing and atomic deployments. If there is a 'good thing' to be had from that outcome it is that lurid proof of Einstein's "World War IV will be fought with rocks..." argument kept others from feeling a need to copy the brutal Americans.

Even so, we have not expunged our guilt by our subsequent tolerance and self-restraint. And we will not, until we admit that there were other, better, more humane, tactics available.

And that the latewar U.S. WWII leadership, from Truman on down, should be reviled as Stalin and Hitler were.

As war criminals.

For not OBEYING the Hague conventions regarding avoidance of deliberate civillian casualties by NOT striking centers of culture and population.

At a time when we were winning the damn war and had NO REASON to make it an 'either or' forced immediate choice. We proved who the real brats were.


KPl.


Some Reading For You-
An historical perspective on indiscriminate bombing
www.japanfocus.org...

Casualties In A Range Of...
www.theatlantic.com...

Historical Statistics on why the Aftermath of War is the most Lethal
www.geocities.com...

'If I had lost the war...' Lemay Admits to War Crimes
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 18-1-2006 by ch1466]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
In any event, there was absolutely no justification for the deaths of perhaps as many as 500,000 Japanese in the firebombings. Simply because they, like our own civvies, were building weapons for uncle Hiro.

that was exactly the justification.


Because we could have (and indeed /were/) STARVED THEM TO DEATH, slowly, simply by attacking their transport and rice crops. Leaving the option of a six month blockade leading to a rescue food effort that made us look merciful rather than vae victis bombastic in our stated justifications.


The people truely running Japan would not have felt the effects of hunger you suggest, and a cursery review of such pleasure lands as North Korea reveal that starving people can hold out much longer than the 6 months you suggest. Deliberately starving a people to death for 10 years or more, instead of taking action to end the war as quickly as possible, cannot be considered "merciful".


It didn't help that the Japanese had made themselves out to be Bushido Suicide Cultists at every level of society. But just as when a little child hits and slaps at you, you DO NOT exercise your adult strength to beat him or her senseless or dead.

so, you are saying that the Japaneese were really just misguided children? Funney, everything I've ever seen of what was going on in Japan at the time indicate "fascist regiem" was a closer definition.


If there is a 'good thing' to be had from that outcome it is that lurid proof of Einstein's "World War IV will be fought with rocks..." argument kept others from feeling a need to copy the brutal Americans.

no need to copy us at all, nope, nosiree! I'm not going to waste time posting links to Soviet Nukes, or any of the wars fought since then.


And that the latewar U.S. WWII leadership, from Truman on down, should be reviled as Stalin and Hitler were.

As war criminals.


wow, you say 500,000 killed during attacks on industrial centers during war compares with 11 Million killed for "not fitting the desired mold", or 20+ Million killed to establish complete control of all aspects opf a nation? Thanks for not including the Chineese, last estimate I saw on thier post WW2 activities was over 30 Million.

I'd reccomend you check with more sources, and some that don't take the view of "America bad, America bad!". Saying that bombing Japaneese cities wasn't neccisary or justifiable during World War Two is revisionist history at it's worst. Saying the US is evil for not deciding it was wrong of us to go to war is insulting. Saying the Japaneese didn't pose any real danger to us or anyone else is pure fantasy.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Travellar,

>>>
civvies, were building weapons for uncle Hiro.
>>>

>>
That was exactly the justification.
>>

No it was not. It was raciism and burgeoning 'war fever' as a convenience for disparity of treatment of another ethnic phenotype. Do NOT kid me mister.

The relevant Articles Of The Hague Convention-

>
Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26.
The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Art. 27.
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

Art. 28.
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.

Article 50
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.
>

www.yale.edu...

ABSOLUTELY PROSCRIBE ANY ACTION REMOTELY SIMILAR TO THE 'DEHOUSING' ATTACKS ON CIVILLIAN INFRASTRUCTURE EXECUTED BY ALLIED AIRPOWER AT ANY POINT IN WWII.

Since both parties (USA and Japan) were Hague signatories and neither contracting party stated it was intending to abjur from binding agreement as covered by the List Of Plenipotentiaries 'prenup'-

>
Article 1.
The Contracting Powers shall issue instructions to their armed land forces which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention.

Art. 2.
The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Art. 8.
In the event of one of the Contracting Powers wishing to denounce the present Convention, the denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Netherlands Government, which shall at once communicate a duly certified copy of the notification to all the other Powers, informing them of the date on which it was received.

The denunciation shall only have effect in regard to the notifying Power, and one year after the notification has reached the Netherlands Government.
>

www.yale.edu...

_The United States Of America and all it's armed forces are subject to war crimes trials for extreme abuse of civillian noncombattants throughout WWII_.

>>
The people truely running Japan would not have felt the effects of hunger you suggest, and a cursery review of such pleasure lands as North Korea reveal that starving people can hold out much longer than the 6 months you suggest. Deliberately starving a people to death for 10 years or more, instead of taking action to end the war as quickly as possible, cannot be considered "merciful".
>>

You look at Katrina and you think again.

You REALIZE that there is _Not A Damn Thing_ you can do to prevent attacks up agriculture by airpower. The fields. The farms. The storage silos and processing facilities.

And then you apply a little _Lesser Evil Logic_ between /burning to death/ civillians in the tens of thousands. And similar attacks on their food stores and transport/distribution systems.

Korea starves because she chooses to, one day at a time, misinvesting her political and economic wealth on wartoys.

If we chose to MAKE THEM SUFFER an artificial famine, the period between deprivation and nation collapse would be WEEKS, at most.

Don't believe me?

No cows, no chickens, no rice fields, no processing, no power distribution to handle requests for reserve stocks of anything.

>>
so, you are saying that the Japaneese were really just misguided children? Funney, everything I've ever seen of what was going on in Japan at the time indicate "fascist regiem" was a closer definition.
>>

Japan in 1930 had a population of 73 million in the home islands. The U.S. in 1944 had a population of 138 million.

Japan _could not_ sustain herself on existing intra-national resources and was desparate to 'secure' (thieve) from other states by exploiting Hitler's European war.

That said, her desparation was indeed childlike for she nominally attacked the U.S., as an 'adult' government, for denying her what she needed to sustain any reasonable war effort: Iron, Oil and Machine Tools.

By attacking us, she lost access to those things while irrationally believing that she could fight a war against a nation with almost twice her populace, 100 times her land mass and 6,000 miles distant.

As a means of expediting her war, she used an attack method which not only DID NOT bridge any of those major geostrategic shortcomings but which also amounted to a stab in the back against _fellow human beings_ whom she /assumed/ were too base or uncaring to feel a _common sense of betrayal_ at an unjustified military attack.

In this, Japan displayed the behaviors of children everywhere which is principally an inability to define the full scope of resource/power disparity 'in the details' of their relationship with the world.

And also a sense of projectionism and displacement by which arrogance and pride substituted for a reasoned self analysis as to both the likely emotional impact and physical consequences deriving from her actions.

See, Want, Take/Do.

Only children employ that kind of insouciance as a substitute for rational cognition from experience. And so war is the most base of childlike instinctive behavioral responses to resource driven (overpopulation, 90% of the time) stress.

Never mistake innocence for kindness. Wolves and Children are both some of the most innocent of playful base creatures.

>>
No need to copy us at all, nope, nosiree! I'm not going to waste time posting links to Soviet Nukes, or any of the wars fought since then.
>>

Statistically, we skipped at least two major wars by virtue of having a Carthaginian polarization of world power blocks, each armed with nuclear weapons.

OTOH, since the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, we have been involved in two major theater wars and now a third conflict which is shaping up to be much like the 'alliance system' precursors (young turk regional powers, wanting to prove themselves, involve much older, more internecine-twisted allegiances in their battles) to WWI.

EVEN IF we keep the next war conventional, do not think that it will be any prettier than that first great shared debacle of human militarist endeavor was.

>>
Wow, you say 500,000 killed during attacks on industrial centers during war compares with 11 Million killed for "not fitting the desired mold", or 20+ Million killed to establish complete control of all aspects of a nation?
>>

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Because YOUR argument is tantamount to saying "We only apply promisory conditions of humane treatment when the threat is such as to warrant our behaving in case we lose..."

We were NEVER in a position to 'lose' WWII. Certainly by the /end/ of the war, we KNEW we held all of the cards on both strategic position. And WMD.

Where you do not need to waste effort in butchery, you do not. That is the gift and the demand of a morally upright nation led by responsible leaders who are not afraid to put a HUMAN FACE to conflict. Separate from any temptation to demonize 'based on what the other guy did'.

You OTOH, will put us all at risk of shared blame by creating an analogy whereby those who could not, IN ANY WAY, effect Hitler's or Stalin's view of eugenics and governance. Are responsible for their actions.

Welcome to Osama's world.

>>
Thanks for not including the Chineese, last estimate I saw on thier post WW2 activities was over 30 Million.
>>

How ironic. The Chinese have entire /rafts/ of anecdotal phrases and sayings which include:

"The dragon rests high on the mountain and watches the two tigers fight on the slopes below..."

"Sit peacefully by the river and watch the corpse of your agitated enemy float by..."

But my favorite is too stories that are collectively stated as 'The Emperor's Mercy'.

One day, a thief came into the grounds of the Forbidden City and stole one of the carp (Goldfish) from the Emperor's ponds. Caught, he swallowed the fish and was brought before the Emperor to be given a suitable form of death penalty (for to be even /in/ the City was a capital offense).

Looking at him, the Emperor smiled. Saying: "Wait 24hrs for this to pass and then let him go."

The guards were astonished but loyal and took junior away to 'sit it out'. Meanwhile, the Emperor's chamberlain whispered in his ear of the unwise nature of showing weakness before the common man.

And the Emperor laughed and said "I have many fish. If he repeats his story, 90 percent of those who listen will never believe him. The 10% who do will understand...I give mercy because I can afford to CHOOSE."

In another day, another emperor had brought before him a poor craftsman who had built a fantastic flying machine. Little more than what we would call a kite today, it still gave it's rider the ability to surveil lands all around for half a days march and to signal the approach of armies with signal lamps or mirrors, twice as far.

Smiling, the Emperor asked if the man had shown this wonderful invention to anyone else. And when the man said only his family had even seen it and they did not believe the importance of his 'contraption'.

The Emperor smiled again, sadly, and said he full well understood the value of this device and asked that the man await his decision on a reward.

As soon as the man was gone, the Emperor ordered his chamberlain to have him and all his family killed, immediately.

Shocked and horrified, the chamberlain asked /why/ for this was but a humble man doing his best, on his own time, to provide a great gift to his Emperor.

And the Emperor nodded and said, "But understanding it's principles, do you think you could build one? I have just completed the Great Wall at countless loss in life and money. If I gave that man the rich wealth he truly deserves, the Mongols would be across it in less than a day..."

Looking across he then said: "Be glad I trust you more than him."

THAT is wisdom. Sparing life because you are The Emperor. And can increase your status by showing you can afford to do so.

THAT is power, slaughtering where you must, irrespective of outside views, because wisdom tells you that there is no room for compromise. Because you don't have the resources to be kind.

WWII in the pacific should never have been fought as an island hopping adventure in blood-for-dirt microoffenses that bought us NOTHING we intended to hold onto.

Indeed, the only conquerages worthy of consideration in the entire Japanese expanded sphere of control were Guam and Wake. Either of which would have let us initiate B-29 raids _with mines_ without ever wasting the months of (logistical=resource) failure attempting to 'buy off the Chinese' to build airfields over The Hump for West->East attacks.

Indeed, given we chose not to prosecute War Plan Orange in bringing the Japanese to battle and they had little more than small unit warfare tactics with which to hold onto their swampland cesspits, ALL of the PTO campaign could and should have been won with torpedoes and mines.

Killing off Japan's Maru fleet until she either decided she was willing to forego further humiliation as a child among adults.

Or we could shift the mass of forces necessary for ONE massive invasion instead of a series of 5-10-20K losses on BFE places like Guadalcanal, The PI, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo and Okinawa.

>>
I'd reccomend you check with more sources, and some that don't take the view of "America bad, America bad!". Saying that bombing Japaneese cities wasn't neccisary or justifiable during World War Two is revisionist history at it's worst. Saying the US is evil for not deciding it was wrong of us to go to war is insulting. Saying the Japaneese didn't pose any real danger to us or anyone else is pure fantasy.
>>

And I recommend you grow up and start studying war as an exercise not in political CYA double speak after the vae victis fact. But an expression of moral objectivity vs. logistical necessity that is obvious when you look at it, for what it is.

Again, contrary to populist notions of who was 'The Greatest Generation':

WHEN THE TRUTH IS RECOGNIZED FOR WHAT IT IS, WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT.

We have to be.

Because we cannot blame Japan for losses we took /after/ they attacked U.S. Losses that never would have been incurred (300,000 casualties in the Pacific) had we chosen to act like adults dealing with little rabidly dangerous children.

And we're done here.


KPl.


LINKS-
Japanese Prewar Demographics
en.wikipedia.org...

U.S. In 1944
www.infoplease.com...

[edit on 20-1-2006 by ch1466]

[edit on 20-1-2006 by ch1466]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
"if we had invaded mainland japan it would have been a bloodbath. women and children would have taken up arms against us, and the total death toll would have been in the millions on both sides, instead just the tens of thousands that were killed due to the atomic bombs. "

That may be true (it's certainly original!) but it's a different argument and not one I've seen before.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
"Any credible author who mentions the dog mines, says they were miserable failures born of desperation. "

The Russians were hardly desperate, and as far as I can tell it's only Western authors who diss the dog mines. Point taken about Suvorov, but he was the only one whose name sprang to mind.

"I have come across the cat bomb in several books, about $50 000 was allocated to research and testing. "

I'd be interested to see evidence, but at that scale it doesn;t sound like a real project.

"You mean like the German civilains in WWII killed by indescriminate city busting ? "

Exactly - or civilians over here being killed by their indiscriminate city busting. Is one justified and the other not?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

No it was not. It was raciism and burgeoning 'war fever' as a convenience for disparity of treatment of another ethnic phenotype. Do NOT kid me mister.


it had nothing to do with racism. i guess you have completely disregarded the fact that the japanese started the war in the first place. pearl harbor ring a bell? corrigidor? the death march? at any rate, if you insist on this argument, then i will remind you that the same could be said for the japanese, who murdered hundreds of thousands of chinese simply because they werent of the same "race" as the japanese. they considered themselves to be the most superior race of men on the planet, and other races were beneath them, and therefore didnt need to be treated humanely.



The relevant Articles Of The Hague Convention-

>
Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;


japanese chemical weapons



To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;


japanese treatment of prisoners compared to nazis



To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;


bataan death march



To declare that no quarter will be given;


nanking: japanese massacre of chinese civilians



To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;


read the chemical weapons link above.



To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;


the japanese are well known to have faked surrender in order to draw american soldiers closer to kill as many as possible when the japanese soldier blew himself up with a grenade.



To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;


disregarded by every single country that fought wwII. as you mentioned before, bombing of cities was commonly used in europe (and according to your own source, by the japanese as well). while i agree that these methods of war are horrible, they were accepted at the time by all parties involved.



Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.


so cities with anti aircraft batteries are okay to bomb then?



Art. 26.
The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.


again, like they did at pearl harbor?



Art. 27.
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.


again, see massacre of nanking



Art. 28.
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.


see above

i just dont feel like going through and responding to the rest of your post point by point...especially when it all says the same thing: america is bad. there is no convincing someone like you that the actions taken during wwII were done because those fighting the war wanted it to be the last war ever fought, and were willing to do whatever it took to insure that concept. they werent the bloodthirsty criminals that you painted them to be. they were truelly the greatest generation we have had in this country and they went through sheer hell for you and me in order to insure a better life for the generations to come. i'm sorry that you cannot understand that or respect them for their sacrifices, and can only hope that you never have to endure what that generation did for us.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join