English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

... in World War II. Fire-bombing worked pretty well.

And, that was just in Japan.

So much for letting soldiers fight it out and not targeting innocent families.

Dems must be proud. Are you?

2007-01-23 00:21:50 · 8 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government Politics

8 answers

Look, I'm a Republican, but I think you're way off base here. That was a different time. It was also total war. That means war to the death of nations. It was them or us. Besides, we didn't have the technology at the time for the surgical strikes you see today. For the record, the thinking at the time was about saving American lives. The Japanese (and Germans) were the enemy. All of them. Do you have any idea how many would have died if we had invaded Japan instead of dropping atomic bombs? Go check your history books. The Japanese were fanatically dedicated to the defense of the emperor. They would have died to the last person in defense of the home islands. How many millions would that have been?

Don't blame the Dems for WW2 deaths. Republicans would have done the same thing. That war was about national survival. Our way of life was at stake. I really think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

2007-01-23 00:39:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Actually the firebombing was in Dresden Germany. In Japan any kind of bomb would start fires. Check out their building materials. I am not a lover of Dems (at least their Liberal side) but in a all out war, you fight all out. It may not be right, but if you fight with halfway measures and the enemy fights all out, you lose
Plus did Germany care about the people in Britain when they bombed London and the countryside with the V2's? Did Japan really care about the Millions of Chinese and people in Burma and India they executed. Whole cities in fact. The war was fought that way by ALL sides. Get off your pulpit and read a little.
During the American Civil War Sherman stated the only way to end a war is to make the people want it to stop, for if the civilian population never suffers, they will sponsor a war forever.

2007-01-23 08:33:14 · answer #2 · answered by mark g 6 · 1 0

I am a conservative and not a supporter of Democrats. But your comments are out of line. During WWII, the world was at war. The US government and US military were responsible for forming and carrying out national defense policy.
Virtually all of the people in Japan were a part of the war machine. The goal of the US was to defeat the enemy. The goal was accomplished. It was not Dems or Reps, it was all of the people of the US who participated in the victory.
Prior to the final attack on Japan, it was estimated that the US would lose as many as a million soldiers if we had to invade Japan.
The US made the right decision in defeating Japan.

2007-01-23 08:33:20 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1 0

Proud? No one is proud of bombing someone. However, the bomb was first being developed in Germany and had they gotten it first, do you think they wouldn't have used it? Or Japan? Everyone was trying to win the war.

Look at the bombing in London, or ours in Berlin. It doesn't take nuclear power to kill. Bombs weren't as precise then, and civilian casualties were massive.

2007-01-23 08:35:38 · answer #4 · answered by DAR 7 · 1 0

The Empire of Japan was raping and pillaging as far west as India. They needed a slap in the face to bring them into the 20th century. Al Sadr and his Sunni counterparts need the same damn slap.

Democrats, let our soldiers do what soldiers do... kill.

2007-01-23 08:31:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It's a tragedy, but the US did not declare war. Germany and Japan declared war on us. Iraq never attacked us, never declared war on us.
Do you speak for the republicans who like to say that we took the gloves off during WW2 and we should do the same in Iraq?

2007-01-23 08:30:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Well one thing is for sure. It put a quick end to the war. If it was not for the oil this war would have been over long ago.

2007-01-23 08:30:11 · answer #7 · answered by gates_goins 2 · 1 0

At least then they were not aftaid to fight a war. That is how it should be done. Hit them where it hurts. Otherwise they will just keep going.

2007-01-23 08:30:04 · answer #8 · answered by bildymooner 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers