1 edit
Originally posted by twiceaknight???? I don't understand....why would it be a joke, or twisted??? You're probably very young and do not know the history of WW2, it was fought under very different rules than what we consider "civilized" combat today.
Was that supposed to be a joke? Either way it's a very twisted thing to say.
Originally posted by JokerFiveSorry. Maybe i have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying it is ok to nuke hundreds of thousands of women and children if it means a safer journey home for the American troops.
???? I don't understand....why would it be a joke, or twisted??? You're probably very young and do not know the history of WW2, it was fought under very different rules than what we consider "civilized" combat today.
Originally posted by twiceaknightTaken in the context of WW2, when massive bombings of civilian populations was considered acceptable, yes, that is exactly what I was saying.
Sorry. Maybe i have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying it is ok to nuke hundreds of thousands of women and children if it means a safer journey home for the American troops.
Both Germany and Japan were trying to develop atomic weapons also, had they beaten the US in the race, do you think they would have hesitated to use them? Do you think they'd of only dropped one or two?
Originally posted by JokerFiveFair enough but that is a very different argument to the one that you said
Taken in the context of WW2, when massive bombings of civilian populations was considered acceptable, yes, that is exactly what I was saying.
Both Germany and Japan were trying to develop atomic weapons also, had they beaten the US in the race, do you think they would have hesitated to use them? Do you think they'd of only dropped one or two?
"sounds like a good argument."
I believe the whole point of this forum is “potentially heated discussions…..”
Countless numbers of men (including Australians) have existed under horrible conditions, sacrificed their minds, body parts, and lives in order to make sure people like Sambo will be allowed make their Booby Fischer-like rants. He has the right…at least where I come from.
Originally posted by masscatyeah, he's got the right, but does he have to be such a doosh about it?
I believe the whole point of this forum is “potentially heated discussions…..”
Countless numbers of men (including Australians) have existed under horrible conditions, sacrificed their minds, body parts, and lives in order to make sure people like Sambo will be allowed make their Booby Fischer-like rants. He has the right…at least where I come from.
Originally posted by masscatYes he has the right but that does not mean others must provide him with a platform.
I believe the whole point of this forum is “potentially heated discussions…..”
Countless numbers of men (including Australians) have existed under horrible conditions, sacrificed their minds, body parts, and lives in order to make sure people like Sambo will be allowed make their Booby Fischer-like rants. He has the right…at least where I come from.