Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Realizing that no Western nation is currently "suffering" because of the Iraq or Afghanistan Wars - there are no shortages or battles being fought there - I think that you have a higher opinion of humanity than I do. If you asked anyone with family members getting ready to invade Japan about Hiroshima and Nagasaki which was preferable, I will bet that the response would be in the high 90's for the atomic option.
|
Quite possibly; however, it is a different world now. I'm not sure if this remains relevant today.... Interesting conundrum, nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
If dropping firebombs on Kabul, for instance, would bring Canadian troops home sooner and with a lower casualty rate, do you really think that Canadians would chose to keep troops in the field over the opportunity to bring them home?
|
If there were to be a national referendum held tomorrow, I would bet my bottom dollar that most Canadians would not be in favour of firebombing Kabul if it meant a high casualty rate of civilians--even if it meant bringing home the troops. That isn't what we're there for; that isn't in line with Canadian values.
This is a misleading comparison, though, but your point is taken. It would be difficult to know what a populace wants in a war-torn country, but I would suggest that in today's Western society, much of the public wouldn't have the stomachs for such acts of war. I wonder how many Americans view Hiroshima and Nagasaki as mistakes (for the lack of a better word).