The Iraq Thread

[theavonlady 2]

I'm sitting back here, not really wanting to get involved with this argument.

I just thought I would contribute yestreday's article by Daniel Pipes.

To me, this thread is a perfect example of the divisions discussed therin.

[Longinius 1]

"1) Terrorists often don't represent a country. The USAAC in the Pacific did."

No, because if they represent a country they usually belong to organised armed forces. That doesnt mean they cant responsible for terrorism however. This kind of terrorism is often referred to as state terrorism and it is just as terrible as any other form.

"2) Terrorists sometimes don't claim responsibility for their actions. The USAAC did."

Neither does governments and military units at all times. Denying the A-bombings would be quite hard however, and counterproductive since it was all about scaring (terrorizing) people into submition.

"3) Terrorists target civilians. The USAAC was not targetting civilians."

They werent exactly avoiding civilian casualties either, not even trying. They bombed cities, filled with civilians that had slim to no chance of getting away.

"4) Terrorists usually don't declare war on their enemys before they attack. The USA did."

Yes they do actually. Osama did, IRA, the Palestinians did and so on.

[Badgerboy 0]

Once again the Onion come through for us!

Bush on Korea: "We must invade Iraq"

"Kim Jong Il, you have withdrawn from international nuclear treaties and cruelly starved your own people," Bush said. "The world at large will not let your evil deeds go unchallenged. Someone, somewhere will hold you accountable, sooner or later. I do not know who this person is, but somebody will."

[Frisbee 0]

"Terrorists target civilians. The USAAC was not targetting civilians."

And what would you call nuking a city? 'destroying strategic military equipment'?

I can somewhat agree that one a bomb was necessary,but why the hell were two necessary?

[Necromancer- 0]

War is war... civillians are always the casualties.

Humans fight wars.... not robots who are revengeles war machines.

[Schoeler 0]

Sorry I've been gone for so long fellas, my brother just passed away and I haven't had the heart to argue in a while. I would like to point out however that the Japanese considered their emporer Hirohito as God and subscribed to the code of Bushido during the Second World War, both of which allowed no room for surrender. There are several very interesting and informative books on the war in the Pacific and the Japanese method of fighting. One that comes immediately to mind is "Goodbye Darkness" by William Manchester. Read some of these books and you will quickly discover the Japanese mindset during the war was to fight to the last man. This can be confirmed by looking at the battle statistics for places like Iwo Jima, Saipan, Peleliu and Okinawa. There were virtually no surrenders, and those who were captured had to be prevented from committing ritual suicide as the Japanese considered falling into the hands of the enemy a disgrace to themselves, their family and their ancestors. I lived on Guam and Saipan for awhile, and these islands are located in the Marianas chain. site of some of the heaviest fighting of the War. Having seen how well dug in the Japanese were and spoken to the locals who remembered living under Japanese occupation (they were used as slaves) I can definitely say they are eternally grateful to the Marines Corps and the United States for their liberation as the Japanese were not going to budge. I have some Japanese friends from that era, half of their family (sadly) were interned at Manzanar in the United States and the other half were being trained to use spears to kill Americans during the anticipated invasion of Japan in late 1945. Yes that is correct, you heard me right, it is a verifiable fact that the Japanese empire was training civilian women and children to fight heavily armed Marines and Soldiers with crude wooden spears, so deadset against surrender were the Japanese people. Estimates of American casualties for the Invasion of Japan neared one million men. I shudder to think of how many civilians might have perished needlessly since Japan was clearly defeated by 1945. So in that sense, it seems highly likely that the dropping of the first A-bomb saved a considerable amount of lives. Roughly 40,000 people perished from that act, which is a far cry from one million on one side alone. Whether the dropping of the second bomb was necessary is something we will propbably never fully know. It is known that the Japanese emporer was still reluctant to surrender unconditionally after Hiroshima. Who knows how he would have decided given more time. Remember that the Japanese were extremely hesitant to "lose face" even at the most horrific of costs in lives, so maybe they would have kept on fighting. Also, Truman warned Japan that the U.S. had a new "superweapon" which they would use if the Japanese did not surrender immediately and Japan ignored the threat. Several in the military at the time wanted to demonstrate the bombs on an unpopulated island, so the Japanese could see the U.S. wasn't bluffing, but there were only two weapons at the time and Truman didn't want to waste one on the mere possiblity it might convince the Japanese to give in. The turn around time for making more bombs was 6 moths to a year (if I remember correctly) which means the U.S. would have had to go ahead with the invasion of Japan lest the Japanese be given time to assemble forces and build better defensive positions. So circumstances prevented other options. Its a shame the way things turned out, but in the end, I truly believe that more lives were saved by the dropping of the bombs than were lost. I hope the world never faces a situation where such weapons are the only viable option, again. Anyway, thats my take on the matter, and I'll see if i can find the titles to some of the books I've read on it. Even if you don't agree with this position, being better informed will only help you in forming stronger arguments against the use of the bombs.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Jan. 15 2003,06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I totally accept that you have a different viewpoint from me, it just happens to be wrong.

Just for your information, my comments about you were based on your comments, not simply that you have a different view from me.

I would just as readily accuse an Afghani (bad example, but bear with me) who glossed over S11 as not being an atrocity of being blinded as I would an American who glossed over the atrocity of dropping two atomic bombs on civilian targets in Japan.

Anyone who scrambles for justifcation over any action their country or leaders take, no matter how fundamentally wrong or evil, is indeed a "sheep" and "blinded", and your comments have proven this time and again.

Please, if you are so easily offended and confused by debate, maybe withdraw from this discussion.<span id='postcolor'>

Your pompousness, arrogance and ignorance is beyond compare.

You go tell a GI fighting in the Pacific War that you think the bombing was wrong and that he should have had to invade Japan. You can tell me his response when you get your dumbass outta the hospital.

Anyone who condemns the discision making of this act and think they took it lightly is indeed with blinders.

Did I try to justify it? Check your reading ability and go back through the posts. I never once said it was justified by another countries actions. In fact, if you care to read the WHOLE post and not just what you want to read, you will see I indeed called it evil. But a necessary one.

Use the brain that you claim to have and try to think something through for once. Dropping bombs and killing approxamately 200,000 civilians is indeed horrible. But then think of the holocaust and the blood-bath that would have insued with an invasion.

Anyone who has debated or talked with me knows that I don't blindly justify or follow my country. You know nothing.

So please refrain from embarrassing yourself by once again using the keyboard and go be a part of a discussion you can handle. There is a nice one about TV shows.

I waste no more time on your ignorance.

[theavonlady 2]

/finished popcorn yesterday

[Akira 0]

Schoeler stated even better what I was saying all along.

Though "evil" (a black and white term) they were necessary.

and sorry about your brother Schoeler.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what would you call nuking a city? 'destroying strategic military equipment'?<span id='postcolor'>

Destroying a military asset, like I've said before.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can somewhat agree that one a bomb was necessary,but why the hell were two necessary?<span id='postcolor'>

Because they didn't surrender after the first one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">/finished popcorn yesterday

<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry I don't get it. Roasting marshmallows?

I just got up from a cat nap so don't get all mad if it's obvious.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Destroying a military asset, like I've said before.<span id='postcolor'>

As I said, by taking that stand you are pissing at the graves of the september eleventh victims. I hope you are proud.

Scholler, Akira, FSPilot: It is quite tiresome trying to lead a dicussion with completely irrational people. I have provided you with links to sources that show that the US military command though that the bombs were not necessary. I've given you references to reports that show that the casualty estimations for an invasion of Japan were off by a factor ten. I've tried reasoning you and point out flaws in the logic - like pointing out that that if the Japanese were never going to surrender then the nukes would have not change that.

And what is your response. You spew out the same things over and over again. Do you think that if you say someting many times that it becomes true?

I am very tempted to in very clear words write what I think about you, but as a moderator I can't do that.

I'll tell you this though: calling the killing of 200,000 civilians for a 'necessary' evil is the same as saying that the holocaust was a necessary evil. You are no better then Nazis in my eyes. I don't like to have Nazis in my forum. You are walking on a very thin line between very bad taste and unacceptable racist point of view.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 16 2003,05:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said, by taking that stand you are pissing at the graves of the september eleventh victims. I hope you are proud.<span id='postcolor'>

Uh no.  I don't do that at all.  They attacked the world trade center because they believed it was an asset to our country, which they were attacking.  We nuked Japanese cities because they were an asset to the Japanese military, which we were attacking.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have provided you with links to sources that show that the US military command though that the bombs were not necessary.<span id='postcolor'>

Which, IMO, are biased.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I've given you references to reports that show that the casualty estimations for an invasion of Japan were off by a factor ten.<span id='postcolor'>

Which don't have anything to do with the decisions made before they were published.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll tell you this though: calling the killing of 200,000 civilians for a 'necessary' evil is the same as saying that the holocaust was a necessary evil. You are no better then Nazis in my eyes. I don't like to have Nazis in my forum. You are walking on a very thin line between very bad taste and unacceptable racist point of view.<span id='postcolor'>

Now who's being the nazi.  You're talking about banning people because they have a different point of view than you.

I'm going to say this again, then I'm going to drop it because we've already been over it.

Although the Japanese that were targetted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE civilians, they were producing war materials for the Japanese military, which we were at war with.  Look at another country in world war two.  England went on a night bombing campaign of civilian cities.  Why?  Because they were producing military assets.

Take this for example.  A drug dealer is out on the street giving drugs to people and poisoning the community.  He's doing something he can be arrested for.  Now where does he get these drugs from?  A drug cartel.  Now wouldn't it be smarter to put one or two drug cartels into jail than 100 or 500 drug dealers? To tie this to world war two: wouldn't it be smarter to target a military asset with civilian casualties than to sit and fight and die killing your military, your enemy, and countless civilians?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 16 2003,00:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Scholler, Akira, FSPilot: It is quite tiresome trying to lead a dicussion with completely irrational people. I have provided you with links to sources that show that the US military command though that the bombs were not necessary. I've given you references to reports that show that the casualty estimations for an invasion of Japan were off by a factor ten. I've tried reasoning you and point out flaws in the logic - like pointing out that that if the Japanese were never going to surrender then the nukes would have not change that.

And what is your response. You spew out the same things over and over again. Do you think that if you say someting many times that it becomes true?

I am very tempted to in very clear words write what I think about you, but as a moderator I can't do that.

I'll tell you this though: calling the killing of 200,000 civilians for a 'necessary' evil is the same as saying that the holocaust was a necessary evil. You are no better then Nazis in my eyes. I don't like to have Nazis in my forum. You are walking on a very thin line between very bad taste and unacceptable racist point of view.<span id='postcolor'>

So now I am a rascist because YOUR sources say it wasn't necessary, while the ones I read say it was?

And how exactly pray tell did it go from me saying it was a "necessary evil" to me being like the Nazis. Your view point is ludicrous.

You have a problem with me saying its a necessary evil then deal. Those deaths saved the lives of millions regardless of what YOUR sources say.

You think I am a Nazi now? Then that shows how little you actually know. So now we can't even debate about something with out you coming in and calling us all racists and giving a thinly veiled threat of banning.

That is a STONG arguement for Moderators not being aloud to participate in any discussion.

Your leap of logic sickens me and shows how little you really know in your thin rightous mind.

I'd write more but I am so pissed at this bullshit I'm shaking.

And dont' tell me this should be PMed. You brought it out public then you will deal with it publicly.

PS...they aren't YOUR forums. They are BIS/Codemasters.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Oddly enough, this is the second time in a very short period that you have compared people who disagree with you to fascists. I think it's time for a head-check Denoir.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 16 2003,00:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're talking about banning people because they have a different point of view than you. <span id='postcolor'>

This is a question of where the acceptable limit is. It has nothing to do with my views. It has everything to do with a racist preconception of that the Japanese were savages whou would rather be killed then surrender. It has to do with justifying the mass killings of civilians because of a political agenda.

I would react the same way if somebody tried to justify the holocaust or the mass killings that the Japanese did in China.

I'm aware that it might be controversial to you, but this is not a matter of different opinions. It has to do with applying the same criteria for everybody, no matter what your political/national orientation might be.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 16 2003,00:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oddly enough, this is the second time in a very short period that you have compared people who disagree with you to fascists. I think it's time for a head-check Denoir.<span id='postcolor'>

No there is a big difference. In the gun debate I pointed out that relating human value to social function is a fascist ideology. That's just stating a fact. Nazism and fascism is not the same thing. The nazis mass murdered a people because of their nationality, the fascist did not. While you might not find the term 'fascist' flattering, being a fascist falls within political freedom. Being a nazi doesn't however.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 16 2003,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 16 2003,00:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're talking about banning people because they have a different point of view than you. <span id='postcolor'>

This is a question of where the acceptable limit is. It has nothing to do with my views. It has everything to do with a racist preconception of that the Japanese were savages whou would rather be killed then surrender. It has to do with justifying the mass killings of civilians because of a political agenda.

I would react the same way if somebody tried to justify the holocaust or the mass killings that the Japanese did in China.

I'm aware that it might be controversial to you, but this is not a matter of different opinions. It has to do with applying the same criteria for everybody, no matter what your political/national orientation might be.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you drunk? You been smoking too much?

I never once SAID or SUGGESTED that the Japanese were savages. The only person that has even come close to saying that is YOU. Is that what YOU think denoir?

So don't tell me what my "preconceptions" are, especially when I didn't even come anywhere near it.

The FACTS are (check ANY history book), that the Japanese were fierce fighters. Rather than surrender the made human waves running against machine gun nests on suicide charges (check any book on Guadalcanal, Saipan, Okinawa, Iwo Jima). The Japanese refused to surrender and THAT is a fact and has nothing to do with your mis-reasoned thinking of them as savages.

I can't even believe I am trying to justify myself to you. Especially about something I didn't even say. You need to check your history before you start accusing people of being Nazi's and rascist.

It's f**king sickening.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 16 2003,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The FACTS are (check ANY history book), that the Japanese were fierce fighters. Rather than surrender the made human waves running against machine gun nests on suicide charges (check any book on Guadalcanal, Saipan, Okinawa, Iwo Jima). The Japanese refused to surrender and THAT is a fact and has nothing to do with your mis-reasoned thinking of them as savages.<span id='postcolor'>

You are saying it again: that because the Japanese were "fierce fighters" it was ok to mass murder their civilian population. This has nothing to do with if lifes were saved on the whole or not. It has to do with the justification of mass murder for a political goal. As I said, in the best case it is very bad taste and insulting to the Japanese.

I would say the exactly same thing if you were trying to justify September 11th.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Schoeler stated even better what I was saying all along.

Though "evil" (a black and white term) they were necessary.

and sorry about your brother Schoeler. <span id='postcolor'>

To Osama it was the same. Actually his military doesn't even stand a chance against the U.S. The U.S. could have achieved victory against Japan, if Japan was even going to keep up the fight.

No matter how you put it, like i said before, it is terrorism. it was used to strike fear into the civilian population to force it's government to act accordingly to their fears. Same as what Osama is aiming for.

[Akira 0]

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 16 2003,013)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 16 2003,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The FACTS are (check ANY history book), that the Japanese were fierce fighters. Rather than surrender the made human waves running against machine gun nests on suicide charges (check any book on Guadalcanal, Saipan, Okinawa, Iwo Jima). The Japanese refused to surrender and THAT is a fact and has nothing to do with your mis-reasoned thinking of them as savages.<span id='postcolor'>

You are saying it again: that because the Japanese were "fierce fighters" it was ok to mass murder their civilian population. This has nothing to do with if lifes were saved on the whole or not. It has to do with the justification of mass murder for a political goal. As I said, in the best case it is very bad taste and insulting to the Japanese.<span id='postcolor'>

Insulting to the Japanese?

Its an insult to say they were fierce fighters? You ARE high.

You need to take a look at my nick. And remember that I went to Japan. And that I study their culture and literature before you start flinging out ill-concieved insults about me "insulting" or having "preconcieved" notions about them.

And you are wrong. It has EVERYTHING to do with what the uppity-ups saw as saving US GI's, and Japanese civilians and servicemen...their requirement as CiC's.

"Mass murder"? The whole war was mass murder for a political goal!

Start reading my posts for once. I never "justified" it, but understand the reasoning behind it.

EDIT: fixed errors due to anger

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 16 2003,01:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you are wrong. It has EVERYTHING to do with what the uppity-ups saw as saving US GI's, and Japanese civilians and servicemen...their requirement as CiC's.<span id='postcolor'>

No it doesn't. The Geneva conventions don't say that its ok to kill civilians if it might possibly save more lives in a distant future. Just the fact that there has been a disagreement from the start if the bombs were necessary shows that it isn't a justifiable decision, even if you are trying to look at a 'greater good'.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You need to take a look at my nick. And remember that I went to Japan. And that I study their culture and literature before you start flinging out ill-concieved insults about me "insulting" or having "preconcieved" notions about them.

<span id='postcolor'>

So can you tell us how the Japanese feel about the nukes? I doubt that even you would say that they think it was a necessary evil.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Start reading my posts for once. I never "justified" it, but understand the reasoning behind it.<span id='postcolor'>

Calling it "necessary" sounds like justification to me.

I'll withdraw one comment though. Calling your opinions nazist would be incorrect since "nazism" is a very well defined term which has nothing to do with your opinions. I would call it instead nazi-like ideology. The justification of on purpose mass murdering civilians for a political cause.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (Akira @ Jan. 16 2003,01:11)

And you are wrong. It has EVERYTHING to do with what the uppity-ups saw as saving US GI's, and Japanese civilians and servicemen...their requirement as CiC's.

No it doesn't. The Geneva conventions don't say that its ok to kill civilians if it might possibly save more lives in a distant future. Just the fact that there has been a disagreement from the start if the bombs were necessary shows that it isn't a justifiable decision, even if you are trying to look at a 'greater good'.<span id='postcolor'>

So because you don't agree makes it a bad decision? Where were you when Truman needed you?

And what you need to do is check history again. Not until the Geneva Conventions of 1949 were articles brought forth that specifically protected civilians. There were no provisions for civilians in WW2.

Geneva Conventions

You are condemning the US on something that wasn't even accepted yet. Hindsight is 20/20.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

You need to take a look at my nick. And remember that I went to Japan. And that I study their culture and literature before you start flinging out ill-concieved insults about me "insulting" or having "preconcieved" notions about them.

So can you tell us how the Japanese feel about the nukes? I doubt that even you would say that they think it was a necessary evil.

<span id='postcolor'>

I can no more tell how people think than you can about how I think. That is plainly obvious. The Japanese may not think it was a necessary evil. But the GI's who would have had to go house to house in Tokyo might have. So what is your point? The Chinese that were at the Rape Of Nanking certainly didn't like it. And the Japanese did. So what is your point? Because the Japanese don't think it was a necessary evil automatically makes it so?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

Start reading my posts for once. I never "justified" it, but understand the reasoning behind it.

Calling it "necessary" sounds like justification to me.

I'll withdraw one comment though. Calling your opinions nazist would be incorrect since "nazism" is a very well defined term which has nothing to do with your opinions. I would call it instead nazi-like ideology. The justification of on purpose mass murdering civilians for a political cause<span id='postcolor'>

You can call me all the names you want, but your rampanent fascism is just as bad. Not to mention your abuse of "power."

Necessary is not "justification."

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can call me all the names you want, but your rampanent fascism is just as bad. Not to mention your abuse of "power."<span id='postcolor'>

Where exactly is the abuse of power? Did anyone get PR'd or banned?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Necessary is not "justification."<span id='postcolor'> No, well damn, it looks like it is.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 16 2003,01:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can call me all the names you want, but your rampanent fascism is just as bad. Not to mention your abuse of "power."<span id='postcolor'>

Where exactly is the abuse of power? Did anyone get PR'd or banned?<span id='postcolor'>

Threatening FSPilot, Schoeler, and myself with banning and calling us "Nazi's" and "rascists" because of our decidedly NON-rascist, historically accurate (backed up by numerous historians) views.

THAT is an abuse of power, especially when not one of us said anything remotely rascist.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 16 2003,01:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So because you don't agree makes it a bad decision? Where were you when Truman needed you?<span id='postcolor'>

Not because I disagree, but because there is a disagreement. That rules out the option of it being undoubtably necessary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what you need to do is check history again. Not until the Geneva Conventions of 1949 were articles brought forth that specifically protected civilians. There were no provisions for civilians in WW2.

Geneva Conventions

You are condemning the US on something that wasn't even accepted yet. Hindsight is 20/20.

<span id='postcolor'>

So you are saying that the holocaust was ok since there were no rules against it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can call me all the names you want, but your rampanent fascism is just as bad. Not to mention your abuse of "power."

<span id='postcolor'>

If I abused my "power" to "oppress" people that disagree with me you would be banned months ago. This isn't an issue of personal opinion or disagreement. As a moderator it is my responsibility to define the limits of what is acceptable. Would you for instance consider glorifying the holocaust to be acceptable and argue for that it is the freedom of speech?

I understand that the atomic bombing is a more controversial issue. And yes, I will inevitably be biased, since I'm human. It is however also my responsibility to set those rules.

You are trying to make this look like I am after you because we are in disagreement. This couldn't be further from the truth. If everybody would agree with me in discussions then these would be very boring forums. The charm of it is exactly that people have opposite beliefs.

There are however limits of what is acceptable and what is not. And as a moderator, I can't look away from the fact that saying that killing 200,000 people for a political goal "was necessary", is at least in very bad taste and disrespectful towards thos who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.