How about Afghanistan or Vietnam? How about the numerous regional conflicts that don't involve massive national armies? Just because the initial odds aren't even doesn't mean the weaker side can't win. Look at Iraq, now. They're still taking out our soldiers.hitmanyr2k wrote:Dumb statement. Every war is not on a level playing field. Usually one side has more advanced weapons or a bigger army than the other. If both sides at war have the same weaponry/army then there's a better chance of major losses. This current war is a prime example of that. Iraq doesn't have shit to war with.kthulhu wrote: By that logic, humanity should have "warred" itself extinct now. I mean, we've had some major ass conflicts and conquering in the past 5000 years, often going on simultaneously.
Is that civilian lives lost in combat, or are you using the Holocaust to inflate those numbers? Because the Holocaust was caused by the German government's policies, not by direct combat. And if you want to blame anyone for those civilian casualties, blame the German government for invading the rest of Europe over some grand notion they got.hitmanyr2k wrote:What caused World War II in the first place? Oh yeah, the repercussions of WWIkthulhu wrote:What about WWII? There were numerous reasons to fight it (not just "AMERICA MUST SAVE THE WORLD!"), but can anyone argue with the end result?
Asia doesn't become enslaved by Japan, Europe doesn't fall under the jackboots of Nazi Germany, occupying Europe gives the western Allies a chance to stall another bloody regime (Stalin's Soviet Union), war manufacturing helped get the US out of the Great Depression, Britain's colonialism begins to end, and Japan and Germany become freer politically.You see a pattern here? War just breeds more hate and more war. And when a war takes more civilians lives than combatants like WWII did it's not a good thing.
Or do you just have some sort of anti-US agenda? Because that's what I'm picking up from your posts...
Did I, now? I seem to recall writing "occupying Europe gives the western Allies a chance to stall another bloody regime (Stalin's Soviet Union)". I think that covers the Cold War without going into too much detail. The Cold War was more an ideological conflict than a direct physical one, although proxy battles were fought during it. Odds are, even without the WWII impetus to develop the atomic bomb, the Cold War would've still happened, and been WWIII instead, fought with conventional weapons.hitmanyr2k wrote:Also WWII basically set conditions for decades of The Cold war which you conveniently forgot. The U.S. and the Soviets were at the brink of nuclear war at one time. Can you imagine if Kennedy or Khrushchev had your stupid attitude? We would have "warred ourselves extinct" by now.
Which is better? Decades of small conflicts and staring at each other over the table, or yet another world war that could consume the world? I think the first option was the lesser of the two evils.
And Kruschev and Kennedy did hold off, because both sides had the military sizes AND nuclear weapons developed during WWII, and they both knew there was a lot at stake.
I think everyone knows the A-bombs were horrific in terms of the number of people they killed. If this is news to you, well, I'm surprised. What good would rehashing the bombs do, except for emotional effect?hitmanyr2k wrote:We dropped atomic bombs on Japan and you're more worried about if they still hate us rather than the civilians lives that were killed. I spent 8 years in Japan and every month huge crowds held a rally and walked around our military bases to protest Americans being there. Obviously some people over there still hold grudges.kthulhu wrote:We even dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, and they don't super hate us still.
People protest our bases for everything from military misconduct (rightfully so) to crazy notions of reviving the Japanese empire.
And people protesting the bases are probably not protesting because of the atomic bombs. Nice attempt at a spin job. They're protesting because they view the bases as a bad influence on the community, or they're xenophobic, or the previously mentioned right-wing nationalism.
For that matter, why should I necessarily be so concerned about the atomic bomb casualties when Japan still hasn't fully apologized or made amends for their atrocities during the war? Or when their textbooks put Japan in the misunderstood victim role? There have been plenty of protests over that, too.
Nice strawman AND thought policing. "You don't think total pacifism is feasible or possible, meaning you don't think like me, meaning you support the terrorists' mindset!"hitmanyr2k wrote:Yeah, tell that to the next group that decides to pull another 9/11. I'm sure they justify their actions the same way you do. "Let's get over this pacifism shit and just go bomb the hell out of those stupid Americans, it's not always a bad thing".kthulhu wrote:Get over this total pacifism shit, people. Humans war. It's not always a good thing (like our current one), BUT it's not always a bad thing (WWII, Somalia).
I hate terrorists, but you know what? If they want to try another attack like the one on September 11th, they are certainly free to do so. And our intelligence divisions are free to stop them. Until everyone thinks and acts alike (which will never, and should never happen) there will always be differences of opinion, different actions, and different methods of resolving conflict.
You go ahead and be an idealistic pacifist, and I'll continue being an unhappy realist 8) .
so much potential anime lost 
