HD,

The right for freedom of speech also have some limitations in most contriesת even in the ultra democrat ones such as us...

When the right for freedom of speech clashes whit the basic right for respect (part of the basic human rights) dignity and huner, then normally the freedom of speech is muted.

Keep in mind that victims of that mass murdere are still alive, (not so many anymore) it might seems long gone and forgotten, but this all happend 70 years ago while genghis Kahn goes back a 1000...

WS, sorry your offended by my name, as they say in the wonderful and beautiful country of Poland, TUFF SHITSKY!!!! There are a lot of people in DF, NOT 1 FEMALE EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT MY NAME OR MY BANNER OR WAS OFFENDED BY IT!!!!! Just as a matter of fact, actually they thought it was hilarious!!!! NOW THAT BEING SAID!!!! I find that hitler dudes name!, VERY WRONG!!! BUT IT MY OPINION, AND THE OPINION OF OTHER GOOD PEOPLE LIKE BELSAJ, THAT NAME IS OFFENSIVE BUT I AM NOT WRITING OR COMPLAINING ABOUT IT, MAYBE I SHOULD, AFTER ALL MY WIFE IS JEWISH !!!!! SOMETIMES POWERS THAT BE WILL TAKE OF HIM AND HAVE!!!!! IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, GO TO YOUR NEAREST DRAWER, OPEN IT UP, REACH IN, PULL OUT YOUR NUTS, SCREW THEM ON, GRAB A TISSUE, DRY THE TEARS FROM YOUR EYES, AND PLAY THE GAME, OR DONT PLAY AT ALL!!! Either way I could care less, UNTIL ZUP OR ANOTHER MOD TELLS ME TO CHANGE MY NAME, THEN IT IS SETTLED, I WILL !!! Til then, NEED I SAY MORE???!!!! THATS MY OPINION AND I AM STICKING TO IT, AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT OPINIONS RIGHT?? IF NOT I WILL REMIND YOU, OPINIONS ARE LIKE ASSHOLES, EVERYBODY HAS ONE, AND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR TO!!!! HAVE A BANDIT DAY!!!! OR IS THAT TO OFFENSIVE FOR YOU!!!???? BEFOR I LEAVE, IF MY NUTS BOTHER YOU ON THE BACK OF MY AIRPLANE, JUST DONT LOOK!!!!!

First if all if you mute free speech and set limitations on it then its not really free is it? Secondly, how many holocaust victims do you really think play df? Given their dwindling numbers id be surprised if any did and will gladly eat my nasty work shoes if im proven wrong. That being said i still feel everyone isnt giving the hitler name a fair shake. Now with regards to the one that was spouting filth yes something had to be done about that. But for the one who use it and still follow the rules, does it really make us any better as humans if we judge someone just based on their name? Cuz thats what im getting out of this thread, that anytime someone uses that name, they will be the subject of harrassment until they change it or leave and thats not right either.

Just a thought... If you have murdered over say, I don't know, 5 million people, maybe your name is no longer acceptable in polite company.

I mean if you are unlucky enough to be named Howard Hitler, Paul Pol Pot, Mickey Mao, or Stevie Stalin then maybe we'll let it slide, but beyond that nothing good can come from you going around here with that name.

And yes HD, if someone goes around here with the name Hitler, they don't have to worry about being treated well by me. Sorry... Call me old fashioned.

Jacklpe wrote: Just a thought... If you have murdered over say, I don't know, 5 million people, maybe your name is no longer acceptable in polite company.

I mean if you are unlucky enough to be named Howard Hitler, Paul Pol Pot, Mickey Mao, or Stevie Stalin then maybe we'll let it slide, but beyond that nothing good can come from you going around here with that name.

And yes HD, if someone goes around here with the name Hitler, they don't have to worry about being treated well by me. Sorry... Call me old fashioned.

See i still find that to be unfair jack bc you're still judging the person based on their name without getting to know them. Being old fashioned is no excuse for that. Try putting yourself in their shoes. How would you feel if somehow your name became synonymous with an atrocity and you were therefore judged by those who dont know you bc of it? I imagine you'd get pretty upset about it. At the end of the day, how each of us reacts to a name is ultimately a reflection on the character of each of us. To prove that point, look at my current in game name, uncle nasty. The one thing i get the most from players the first time they see me is an association with a late night sneaky uncle. This however, is far from the truth as those who have taken the time to get to know me have found out. If i were to change my name to hitler to prove a point I'd immediately have a mob after me even though you all know me already. So what does that say about the character of those who'd choose to not continue being my friend just bc of a name?

HD you are in the wrong here.
To choose Hitler as a nick name is bad. To choose Heil Hitler is racist. It's not okay. It doesn't matter if there is 0 or 100 holocaust victims in this game, it doesn't matter if he/she who choose that name use a bad language ingame or not. Racism isn't accepted. Can you now understand that you are wrong or should it in your opinion also be allowed to use the N-word as nickname?

Your mind-your-own-business-it's-freedom-of-speech attitude makes it look like you sympathize with it. I sure hope you don't.

And the freedom of speech doesn't always come first. There's limitations even in that right.

I grew up in a Swiss/German community, where nearly every surname reflected the ancestry. We had several families Anglicanize their names, or changed the spelling to Heidler or Hettler. That said, there are still Hitlers in the phone book, and one Adolf.

Now, what are the extreme odds that one of them happens to be named Heil, and is a DF player? No, the name in question was picked on purpose by an attention seeking doosher. I had another one this weekend, probably a post-war Nationalist Socialist refugee whose family fled to Brazil, and spouted how Americans were fat and lazy and would soon be crushed, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

I submit that all of them should now fall into the new DF name category, deutschebags. If you encounter a deutschebag, please fill them full of lead, while being vocal in your support of their rights to expression. YEMX can attest to the lead deposited in this weekend's deutschebag, who pleaded "don't shoot" at the end of the game after a thorough hosing.

HD,

IMO, one can choose a name that communicates A LOT about them. Most names are nothing, innocuous, and should tell people nothing substantial about the person, and your argument is spot on. Your name is such a name. On the other end of the spectrum, we have active names that would be racist and clearly show a great deal about the person. Fill in the race, but ******'s Suck, *** Hater, and the sexist versions of those, all would tell us a great deal of the person and would be immediately actionable.

So the question is, where does the name Hitler fall? Does the name itself convey *** Hater? Or does is need more? In the past, Z has nixed Heil Hitler and a couple others.

On HD's defense, what about the name Adolf? I actually met an Adolf.

Certainly when coupled with rule-breaking behavior, such players need a ban. But should mods enforce a name change? IMO, if the name conveys close to enough persecution, and a player complains about being offended, then the mods have to make a call and draw a line. Tough job to draw that line. And it sucks if the line is inconsistently drawn, or worse yet, political.

Manfred

bellsaj wrote: HD you are in the wrong here.
To choose Hitler as a nick name is bad. To choose Heil Hitler is racist. It's not okay. It doesn't matter if there is 0 or 100 holocaust victims in this game, it doesn't matter if he/she who choose that name use a bad language ingame or not. Racism isn't accepted. Can you now understand that you are wrong or should it in your opinion also be allowed to use the N-word as nickname?

Your mind-your-own-business-it's-freedom-of-speech attitude makes it look like you sympathize with it. I sure hope you don't.

And the freedom of speech doesn't always come first. There's limitations even in that right.

No I'm not sympathizing, im just playing devil's advocate here. But in order to do so i have to approach it from a point of view that almost all will not like. Though in my opinion, freedom of speech, like it or not, carries with it the inherent ugly side of hearing things we find offensive. One thing i do believe and have always believed is that true freedom, be it freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc, means that whether we like it or not, we have to tolerate the bad or offensive as well. So if we wanted to make it that black and white then yes, we would have to allow the use of the n-bomb as a name. And yes unfortunately racism would come into that as well. We all know things aren't that crystal clear as there is alot of grey in between. I just find it to be somewhat hypocritical that as a society we say "you are free to do as you like, but you can't do this that or the other thing." Now we justify this by saying it's for the greater good, however, there once was a time many many years ago, when a man could say whatever he liked and that was accepted as his opinion and he alone had to deal with the consequences. In todays society, political correctness rules what is and isn't ok to say. Now people are afraid to speak up about what they think is right or wrong bc they may find themselves embroiled in a lawsuit for it. This is the flaw that I'm trying to bring to light. When did society decide that the freedom of speech needed to be regulated? Why are we as a society so afraid to stand up for what's right even if it means backing up someone who may offend the majority? I dont like racism or anti semitism, and as long as the person is only speaking who am i to stand up and say that that person shouldn't be allowed to speak that belief? Even if the majority does find it offensive, its that person's opinion, and it's their life. Ultimately they will have to deal with the consequences of their words and actions, just as i will have to deal with the consequences of my words here.

[WS]HD wrote:

Jacklpe wrote: Just a thought... If you have murdered over say, I don't know, 5 million people, maybe your name is no longer acceptable in polite company.

I mean if you are unlucky enough to be named Howard Hitler, Paul Pol Pot, Mickey Mao, or Stevie Stalin then maybe we'll let it slide, but beyond that nothing good can come from you going around here with that name.

And yes HD, if someone goes around here with the name Hitler, they don't have to worry about being treated well by me. Sorry... Call me old fashioned.

See i still find that to be unfair jack bc you're still judging the person based on their name without getting to know them. Being old fashioned is no excuse for that. Try putting yourself in their shoes. How would you feel if somehow your name became synonymous with an atrocity and you were therefore judged by those who dont know you bc of it? I imagine you'd get pretty upset about it. At the end of the day, how each of us reacts to a name is ultimately a reflection on the character of each of us. To prove that point, look at my current in game name, uncle nasty. The one thing i get the most from players the first time they see me is an association with a late night sneaky uncle. This however, is far from the truth as those who have taken the time to get to know me have found out. If i were to change my name to hitler to prove a point I'd immediately have a mob after me even though you all know me already. So what does that say about the character of those who'd choose to not continue being my friend just bc of a name?

Reread my post HD. As I said, if you truly are unlucky enough to be named Mickey Mao, then so be it. But, if you choose such a name "just cause" then you are an automatic a-hole in my book.

If you believe that "Heil Hitler" is that jerk off's real name, then I've got a fake bar you'll be interested in buying too...

Jack why make the distinction that hes an a-hole just bc he chooses heil hitler for a name? How do you know his last name isnt really hitler? In which case hes not an a-hole at all. Perhaps its not really his last name and hes just a fascist. There are plenty of former nazis who didnt share hitlers views but were fascists nonetheless. Would you say they are a-holes too bc of their political views? Its one thing when someone is actively being negative bc they want to stir the pot and gain attention or be banned and its another thing entirely when we judge them without getting to know them first.

I'll tell ya what man, you can get to know 'em, and I'll let you tell me how it worked out for ya.

Btw, I thought I was the king of goofy debates. You stole my crown here. I'm ok with that.

It's only about 2 months ago we had a bunch of extreme "new natzis" coming to our town screaming racist profanities jumping innocent bystanders hitting and kicking civilian people and police officers. I sure gets to me that someone defend their likes.

I have blown a fuse or two right now, but I'll ask you nicely.

Please stop defending them.

Jacklpe wrote: I'll tell ya what man, you can get to know 'em, and I'll let you tell me how it worked out for ya.

Btw, I thought I was the king of goofy debates. You stole my crown here. I'm ok with that.

Lol i just found a cause i could build a decent case on thats all

Bell, watch this all the way through. It'll cheer you up! It always makes me smile.

Caution: adult language

bellsaj wrote: It's only about 2 months ago we had a bunch of extreme "new natzis" coming to our town screaming racist profanities jumping innocent bystanders hitting and kicking civilian people and police officers. I sure gets to me that someone defend their likes.

I have blown a fuse or two right now, but I'll ask you nicely.

Please stop defending them.

Bell, im sorry if this debate has angered you, but you didnt have to keep reading it. We're all entitled to our views and opinions, and since noone else was sticking up for them i did because i find it hard to believe that every last one of them is a rotten apple. As for what happened in your town, i dont consider those to be nazis. Those were likely just thugs looking to raise hell and it sounds like they did. The fascist ideal politically speaking has nothing to do with race. That was something that was added to it by people who assumed that bc hitler was a fascist and slaughtered millions, then it must be a part of it. In reality the fascist ideal and hitlers final solution were two entirely separate things. Sorry if that makes you mad.

What makes me smile is the fact that my Uncle Fred, Uncle Al and several others took a boat ride in the early 40's and then gave several of them lead poisoning...

Sorry man, I have no use for fascists, Nazi's, communists, and their ilk.

I read a great story yesterday about a Klan rally in Austin Texas back in the 70's. A singer named Steven Fromholz got about 200 people together, got em on busses, got em drunk and they went and mooned the rally in unison. Apparently during the trip, they sang "if you're happy and you know it moon the klan" all the way up there and back.

I like that story.

[WS]HD wrote: And i can promise you bell that if you say "Hitler" on here or at a real world pub, you won't be winding up in cuffs because i think those events are so far in the past that the cops aren't gonna care.

Well I think you better be careful what you promise...

czechdaily.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/a-ge...nazi-salute-in-brno/
brnensky.denik.cz/zpravy_region/hajloval...-vezeni20080815.html

I'll save you the trouble to click the links....

A German And His Nazi Salute In Brno

In Law, Sports on August 15, 2008 by Petr Bokuvka Tagged: crime, Germany, motorbikes

A German fan of motorbikes who arrived in Brno to watch the MotoGP race is in jail. A few moments after being interviewed by journalists from the Brnensky denik daily he walked around with his right hand doing the infamous Nazi salute. He was photographed, arrested and put to jail.

The event he was attending had nothing to do with Neonazi movement and he was “just” being stupid, or maybe he was drunk a little and he did not realize what he was doing. Which of course does not mean it is not dangerous behavior. According to Czech laws, he might end up in jail for three years, since he did it repeatedly and at a public place where he could have been seen by thousands of people.

According to an expert on extremist movements quoted by the daily, these charades are usually punished by hefty fines in Germany, so the man did not feel like it would be a big deal in the Czech Republic. Turns out the Czech penal code is way stricter than the German one.

Do a little reading HD, look into what you are speaking of. One sorry excuse of a man tried to exterminate (his words, not mine) an entire race of people. His "plan" was to keep killing other races, religions, sexual orientations, until only one was left. But keep letting us know, how great of an idea it is to glorify his name. I'm sure someone, somewhere is proud of you.

Jack, i find your story amusing bc of the mooning and singing lol, bell, did the man physically assault anyone? No? Then it doesn't sound like the czech republic is a free state at all. Fear drives injustice. Fear drove the attrocities of the holocaust, and it drove the czech government to imprison a man for making a gesture. Fear also drives racism, sexism, and abuse of all kinds. Now ask yourself this, which is a better solution? Imprisoning someone for making a gesture that offended many, or educating people as to the reality of things such as what socialism, capitalism, communism, etc are really about. People, particularly people in positions of high power within any of these systems of ideology use fear to twist their ideology in a negative way so that they dont lose their power. Why should it be that way? That is why the ideologies of fascism and communism are seen in a negative way in the west. Bc in those systems people with the most power abused their power to instill fear in the people so they could maintain their grip on power.

Oh and before you all decide to lynch me for my position in this debate allow me to illustrate the hypocrisy of modern society another way. Hitler slaughtered millions of civilians, and the officers that carried out his orders were either imprisoned and realeased, or executed. Most of the japanese responsible for attrocities during ww2 were either killed in combat or committed suicide at the end of the war. The british carpet bombed whole cities during the entire war killing millions of civilians. Those soldiers (who were also just following orders, just like the ss) were never arrested and prosecuted for war crimes. The united states imprisoned tens of thousands of japanese civilians during ww2 simply bc they were of japanese descent. The united states also carpet bombed entire japanese cities with incendiary bombs killing more civilians than both atomic bombs combined. Then the united states nuked hiroshima and nagasaki.
Yet to this day no allied soldier has been charged with a war crime for the indescriminate slaughtering of civilians because the allies won and had ordered the same types of attrocities that every other world power committed but because they won, they chose to let their soldiers not bear equal consequences for their actions. In the end the allies killed more civilians than the nazis and the japanese combined. And yet their legacies are the ones cast in a negative light.

HD, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDNT NOTICE, THOSE JAPANESE BROUGHT US INTO A CONFLICT IN THE 1940s !!! TELL YOUR SYMPATHY TO THOSE POOR SAILORS ENTOMBED IN THE ARIZONA IN PEARL HARBOR, IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL SUNDAY MORNING DURING CHURCH SERVICES!!! THEY ATTACKED!!!! WHAT DID THEY DO TO DESERVE IT???!!!!!! WE WERE MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS, AND YES PAYBACKS ARE A BITCH!!!! JUST ASK THOSE POOR JAPANESE PEOPLE THAT WERE VAPORIZED BY 2 ATOM BOMBS!!!!! SO DONT GIVE ME ANY CRAP ABOUT DEFENDING PEOPLE IN DF THAT CALL THEMSELVES HIEL HITLER, CHANCES ARE, THEY ARE NO GOOD ARIEN SKINHEAD SONS OF BITCHES TO BEGIN WITH!!!!

Pistolpete59 wrote: HD, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDNT NOTICE, THOSE JAPANESE BROUGHT US INTO A CONFLICT IN THE 1940s !!! TELL YOUR SYMPATHY TO THOSE POOR SAILORS ENTOMBED IN THE ARIZONA IN PEARL HARBOR, IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL SUNDAY MORNING DURING CHURCH SERVICES!!! THEY ATTACKED!!!! WHAT DID THEY DO TO DESERVE IT???!!!!!! WE WERE MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS, AND YES PAYBACKS ARE A BITCH!!!! JUST ASK THOSE POOR JAPANESE PEOPLE THAT WERE VAPORIZED BY 2 ATOM BOMBS!!!!! SO DONT GIVE ME ANY CRAP ABOUT DEFENDING PEOPLE IN DF THAT CALL THEMSELVES HIEL HITLER, CHANCES ARE, THEY ARE NO GOOD ARIEN SKINHEAD SONS OF BITCHES TO BEGIN WITH!!!!

Their targets were military targets, not civilian ones. Did strafe pilots and soldiers on the ground? Yes. Did some civilians get caught in the crossfire running for cover yes. But how exactly does that justify the firebombing campaign of entire cities filled with civilians? How does that justify the use of not one but two weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets? It doesn't. History would like us to believe the allies held the moral high ground in ww2. But if dig deeper you find that first britain and the the united states abandoned their position of attempting to spare civilians bc of an honest error by a luftwaffe navigator. During the battle of britain a night air raid was conducted by the luftwaffe against military targets. Bc of low visibility a single bomber drifted off course and accidentally bombed london. The following night churchill sent an entire raf.bomber squadron to bomb berlin. This escalated into the nightly carpet bombing of entire german cities and continued until v-e day. The united states, faced with the prospect of an extremely bloody invasion of the japanese home islands likewise abandoned their position of attempting to spare civilians and carpet bombed whole cities with incendiaries and the nuked two more. And i will go even further as to say that we did provoke the japanese before the pearl harbor attack by secretly allowing us servicemen to sign a contract with the chinese government as mercenaries to fight the japanese. The group was called the avg flying tigers. We also placed an embargo on the japanese against raw materials. In europe we sent weapons ammo raw materials and men to bolster British defenses. Those men were a part of eagle squadron. No we werent dragged into ww2. We went willingly and sold a piece of ourselves for power in,the process.

[WS]HD wrote:

Pistolpete59 wrote: HD, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDNT NOTICE, THOSE JAPANESE BROUGHT US INTO A CONFLICT IN THE 1940s !!! TELL YOUR SYMPATHY TO THOSE POOR SAILORS ENTOMBED IN THE ARIZONA IN PEARL HARBOR, IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL SUNDAY MORNING DURING CHURCH SERVICES!!! THEY ATTACKED!!!! WHAT DID THEY DO TO DESERVE IT???!!!!!! WE WERE MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS, AND YES PAYBACKS ARE A BITCH!!!! JUST ASK THOSE POOR JAPANESE PEOPLE THAT WERE VAPORIZED BY 2 ATOM BOMBS!!!!! SO DONT GIVE ME ANY CRAP ABOUT DEFENDING PEOPLE IN DF THAT CALL THEMSELVES HIEL HITLER, CHANCES ARE, THEY ARE NO GOOD ARIEN SKINHEAD SONS OF BITCHES TO BEGIN WITH!!!!

Their targets were military targets, not civilian ones. Did strafe pilots and soldiers on the ground? Yes. Did some civilians get caught in the crossfire running for cover yes. But how exactly does that justify the firebombing campaign of entire cities filled with civilians? How does that justify the use of not one but two weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets? It doesn't. History would like us to believe the allies held the moral high ground in ww2. But if dig deeper you find that first britain and the the united states abandoned their position of attempting to spare civilians bc of an honest error by a luftwaffe navigator. During the battle of britain a night air raid was conducted by the luftwaffe against military targets. Bc of low visibility a single bomber drifted off course and accidentally bombed london. The following night churchill sent an entire raf.bomber squadron to bomb berlin. This escalated into the nightly carpet bombing of entire german cities and continued until v-e day. The united states, faced with the prospect of an extremely bloody invasion of the japanese home islands likewise abandoned their position of attempting to spare civilians and carpet bombed whole cities with incendiaries and the nuked two more. And i will go even further as to say that we did provoke the japanese before the pearl harbor attack by secretly allowing us servicemen to sign a contract with the chinese government as mercenaries to fight the japanese. The group was called the avg flying tigers. We also placed an embargo on the japanese against raw materials. In europe we sent weapons ammo raw materials and men to bolster British defenses. Those men were a part of eagle squadron. No we werent dragged into ww2. We went willingly and sold a piece of ourselves for power in,the process.

I agree with some, disagree with other parts... But, there is a big ol' difference between bombing the sh!t out of your enemy versus marching your own countrymen off to systematic death.... Of course then other countries were overrun and their Jewish (and other targeted groups) populations suffered the same fate. I have seen all kinds of speculation as to why Hitler chose the Jews to be his answer to all problems (even a pretty good theory that he contracted syphilis from a Jewish prostitute) but I believe he did so to finance his ambition, and the general anti semitism that was ingrained in so many European societies at the time made it nice and easy for him.

So there is your one big piece of moral high ground. During the first half of the 20th century, the Germans and the Soviets engaged in the mass murder of their own countrymen.... The leaders killed those that they were charged with leading. I know we overreacted in our American citizens of Japanese descent policies, but we didn't kill them. Yes, we inflicted mass destruction on our enemies, but sadly, like it or not, that is war. That is why it is to be avoided at all costs, and then carried out in the most brutal and effective way possible when it is the only option. The longer it lasts, the higher the unintended consequence toll is going to be. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to most of the rules of engagement that our soldiers currently have to operate under. One goal: win quickly. Actually the Sun Tzu teaches that before one goes to war, that the outcome should be already known. (Don't bother going unless you already know you are going to win)

Btw: good for Churchill... They came to bomb, whether the hit on London was by accident or not. They were there to make war. They were successful in their goal. God bless Churchill for returning the favor.

As far as selling anything for power... You are either someone's friend or you aren't. Hitler had been very successful in overtaking most of Europe. His sights were firmly set on England (our close friend and ally). They asked for our help and we gave it to them. That seems pretty simple to me...

Jacklpe wrote:

[WS]HD wrote:

Pistolpete59 wrote: HD, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDNT NOTICE, THOSE JAPANESE BROUGHT US INTO A CONFLICT IN THE 1940s !!! TELL YOUR SYMPATHY TO THOSE POOR SAILORS ENTOMBED IN THE ARIZONA IN PEARL HARBOR, IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL SUNDAY MORNING DURING CHURCH SERVICES!!! THEY ATTACKED!!!! WHAT DID THEY DO TO DESERVE IT???!!!!!! WE WERE MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS, AND YES PAYBACKS ARE A BITCH!!!! JUST ASK THOSE POOR JAPANESE PEOPLE THAT WERE VAPORIZED BY 2 ATOM BOMBS!!!!! SO DONT GIVE ME ANY CRAP ABOUT DEFENDING PEOPLE IN DF THAT CALL THEMSELVES HIEL HITLER, CHANCES ARE, THEY ARE NO GOOD ARIEN SKINHEAD SONS OF BITCHES TO BEGIN WITH!!!!

Their targets were military targets, not civilian ones. Did strafe pilots and soldiers on the ground? Yes. Did some civilians get caught in the crossfire running for cover yes. But how exactly does that justify the firebombing campaign of entire cities filled with civilians? How does that justify the use of not one but two weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets? It doesn't. History would like us to believe the allies held the moral high ground in ww2. But if dig deeper you find that first britain and the the united states abandoned their position of attempting to spare civilians bc of an honest error by a luftwaffe navigator. During the battle of britain a night air raid was conducted by the luftwaffe against military targets. Bc of low visibility a single bomber drifted off course and accidentally bombed london. The following night churchill sent an entire raf.bomber squadron to bomb berlin. This escalated into the nightly carpet bombing of entire german cities and continued until v-e day. The united states, faced with the prospect of an extremely bloody invasion of the japanese home islands likewise abandoned their position of attempting to spare civilians and carpet bombed whole cities with incendiaries and the nuked two more. And i will go even further as to say that we did provoke the japanese before the pearl harbor attack by secretly allowing us servicemen to sign a contract with the chinese government as mercenaries to fight the japanese. The group was called the avg flying tigers. We also placed an embargo on the japanese against raw materials. In europe we sent weapons ammo raw materials and men to bolster British defenses. Those men were a part of eagle squadron. No we werent dragged into ww2. We went willingly and sold a piece of ourselves for power in,the process.

I agree with some, disagree with other parts... But, there is a big ol' difference between bombing the sh!t out of your enemy versus marching your own countrymen off to systematic death.... Of course then other countries were overrun and their Jewish (and other targeted groups) populations suffered the same fate. I have seen all kinds of speculation as to why Hitler chose the Jews to be his answer to all problems (even a pretty good theory that he contracted syphilis from a Jewish prostitute) but I believe he did so to finance his ambition, and the general anti semitism that was ingrained in so many European societies at the time made it nice and easy for him.

So there is your one big piece of moral high ground. During the first half of the 20th century, the Germans and the Soviets engaged in the mass murder of their own countrymen.... The leaders killed those that they were charged with leading. I know we overreacted in our American citizens of Japanese descent policies, but we didn't kill them. Yes, we inflicted mass destruction on our enemies, but sadly, like it or not, that is war. That is why it is to be avoided at all costs, and then carried out in the most brutal and effective way possible when it is the only option. The longer it lasts, the higher the unintended consequence toll is going to be. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to most of the rules of engagement that our soldiers currently have to operate under. One goal: win quickly. Actually the Sun Tzu teaches that before one goes to war, that the outcome should be already known. (Don't bother going unless you already know you are going to win)

Btw: good for Churchill... They came to bomb, whether the hit on London was by accident or not. They were there to make war. They were successful in their goal. God bless Churchill for returning the favor.

Very nicely put jack and likely better put than i could have managed. I'd like to point out though, that war should never be an option. We call ourselves civilized and then resort to brutality and barbarism when two sides cant agree. Why? Ww2 was fought over resources as empires expanded, clashed and dwindled, a sort of "this town aint big enough for the both of us" if you will. You'd think that if we were truly civilized we could find a better way. A way that doesn't involve war. Or combat of any kind. Sadly though, i doubt any country would abide by such results of the better way without being beaten in battle. Im feeling a bit debated out for the night so im gonna watch some tv and go to bed and pick this up tomorrow if there are anymore responses

We nuked japan to bring a war to and end. If we had continued with conventional warfare we would have had to exterminate every last Japanese civilian and soldier alike because they all would have laid down their lives for the Emperor to them he was a God. That's the main reason we nuked them.

Violence, and the threat of it is the only true way to ensure peace. All of this crap about being civilized.... Yea, to a point. But there is ALWAYS someone who is less so that will exploit your unwillingness to defend yourself and use it for their personal gain. This can be done by taking what is yours or making you work to achieve their goals whether you share the same goals or not.

It has always been this way, and it will always be this way. True peace comes from great individual and collective strength.

And that there is all of the smartish thoughts I can conjer up fer the night myself.

Dr Dave wrote: We nuked japan to bring a war to and end. If we had continued with conventional warfare we would have had to exterminate every last Japanese civilian and soldier alike because they all would have laid down their lives for the Emperor to them he was a God. That's the main reason we nuked them.

No it isnt. Thats what we were taught after the fact. The truth is that tokyo, hiroshima, and nagasaki were deliberately spared during the firebombing campaign so that when we nuked them we could accurrately measure the damage. Those were experiments, not military missions. Goodnight gentlemen.. And please tell me that alert i just got wasn't another reply to this thread lol

[WS]HD wrote:

Dr Dave wrote: We nuked japan to bring a war to and end. If we had continued with conventional warfare we would have had to exterminate every last Japanese civilian and soldier alike because they all would have laid down their lives for the Emperor to them he was a God. That's the main reason we nuked them.

No it isnt. Thats what we were taught after the fact. The truth is that tokyo, hiroshima, and nagasaki were deliberately spared during the firebombing campaign so that when we nuked them we could accurrately measure the damage. Those were experiments, not military missions. Goodnight gentlemen.. And please tell me that alert i just got wasn't another reply to this thread lol

We will agree to disagree on this and call it a early end game.....