kuzadd Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 McNamara was a war criminal, self-admitted. Only in twisted minds, is a mass murderer revered. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Michael Hardner Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 Kuzadd, As has been pointed out, depending on the criteria you use then so are Truman, Churchill, or Harper and Obama. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
kuzadd Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 Kuzadd,As has been pointed out, depending on the criteria you use then so are Truman, Churchill, or Harper and Obama. yup, they are. The criteria for war criminals is all the same, there is no differencer, wanton killing of civilians, war crime. Therefore Bush, Obama, Harper, Truman, Churchill etc., are all INDEED war criminals. What you should say, or should be said, it depending on what side of the political situation you sit, or depending on your politics. Or depending on who wins, which also comes down to playing politics. So the fact is, he is a war criminal, he fits the criteria, and the rest is bullshit. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Michael Hardner Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 What you should say, or should be said, it depending on what side of the political situation you sit, or depending on your politics. Kuzadd, I don't think that's so. You haven't stipulated that politics matters in determining that someone is a war criminal, have you ? Why would anybody include political leaning as a qualifier there ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
kuzadd Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 Kuzadd,I don't think that's so. You haven't stipulated that politics matters in determining that someone is a war criminal, have you ? Why would anybody include political leaning as a qualifier there ? I am not talking political leanings, I am talking political machinations. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
DogOnPorch Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) McNamara was a war criminal, self-admitted.Only in twisted minds, is a mass murderer revered. What he said is if America had lost the war (hah! unikely), both he and LeMay would be tried as war criminals. It's noble that McNamara reflected on his life and found he was just a human like the rest of us. But tell me this: If you were the mother of 3 US Marines scheduled to hit the beaches of Japan in Operation Olympic, would you be alright with that? Them invading Japan. Or would you rather have had LeMay and McNamara ending the war before your boys hit the shores? How about if they did invade Japan to end the war...you lose two of your boys...then you find out the US government was saving the A-Bombs for some unknown reason? Would you be voting Truman in the next election? You can't tell as you didn't live back then... Easy to spout so-and-so was a "mass murderer" from the safety of your kitchen nook. Other forces are always at work beyond what you can see from that safety. Here's a real mass murderer from WW2...Petar Brzica. Guard @ Jasenovac. He apparently killed 1360 people in one night alone (August 29, 1942) in a competiton amoung the guards as to who could kill the most Jews and Serbs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srbosjek Edited July 8, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) Apparently, this question is far too deep for kuzadd to answer. So I'll answer for her: I'd gladly send my three boys to near certain death at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Army rather than using airpower to end the war. btw: did you know that the US had reserved SEVEN atomic weapons in production for the invasion of Japan? http://www.theblackvault.com/documents/wwii/marine1/1239.pdf Edited July 14, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.