Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Please don't start another USA/IRAQ/Bush-is-bad thread here now.
Stay on topic!!
|
I don't think I was off-topic, I was trying to compare the two. Maybe I didn't succeed in doing that, I'll try again;
Several posts stated that the bombings weren’t war crimes because they saved lives in the end, by forcing the Germans to surrender.
Now my question is: If we now think that killing a number op (innocent) people makes sure that a larger number of (maybe less innocent) people survives, that’s ok?
Or does it only work if we (allies) are doing the killing?
Because then an enemy of ours could think the same way and we would see it as a crime.
I don’t feel that the WWII bombing are war crimes either, but I’m not sure if I’m biased or not. I still see the bombardment of Rotterdam, which made the Dutch surrender in 1940, as a war crime, and I’m wondering what’s the difference.
I only used Bush as an example, nothing personal. I have a couple of other examples, but I’m afraid I won’t be able to state those in a way that nobody will be offended, so I won’t use them.