Quote:
Originally posted by SLM3
Well, just off the top of my head there's the Mustard Gas testing on Americans as well as on Australians. Of course the government then went on to test the gas on the Japanese in your internment camps because they wanted to see if it would affect the Asian "race" any differently. Obviously, it did not.
One thing I've noticed here is how adamant Americans are at how many lives they SAVED by dropping two nukes. They'll talk about it until they're blue in the face, as if they'd acted out both options and decided one was better than the other. I wish my crystal ball worked that well.
Anyone else read about how the US changed the fuel source in napalm, gave it a new name, and used it most recently in Iraq? Do we need to even touch Vietnam in terms of chemical weapons?
SLM3
|
1 that was a horrid abomination, I agee with you. So you are right, we shouldnt have taken out Saddam.
2 Miltiary experts say that it would have cost over 100,000 lives to force Japan to surrender. Dropping the bombs cost a fraction of that and at a cost of 0 to Americans. I am glad it was done. In fact they had to drop two, as Japan woudlnt surrender after the first one. That shows the mentallity of Imperial Japan. In terms of long term casualties, the bomeb acutally lowerd the body count. To say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of military stratedgy.
3 I didnt hear about that one, why dont you post your sources so we can read it.
I have an idea, how about insted of looking for personal attacks you acutally post the sources of your information. If you are correct as you say, this shouldnt be too difficult to get me to acknowledge your points.