Quote Originally Posted by Mikeandvan View Post
I'm not too familiar with the rules of war, but a soldier is a soldier and a civilian a civilian. One is not supposed to kill civilians, and once again what threat was Japan to the U.S. at that time, what justified the killing of so many Japanese civilians? I suppose you think Vietnam was a good idea as well.
Reminds me of that line from an old film (can't recall which one).

'You can't do that, it's against the Geneva Convention!'

'Yeah but this isn't Geneva pal.'

The reason they have 'rules of war' and so forth isn't for the benefit of the soldiers. It's for the benefit of snowflake middle-class types who sit at home wringing their hands about what's being done in their name. It's so they get the impression that in general, war is a civilized business conducted by gentlemen and that it really isn't such a bad thing. When the reality is that it is brutal and hideous beyond comprehension.

The only way to avoid it is not to have the war in the first place because once it starts all bets are off, all the rules of civilization are suspended.

There is just no point in wringing you hands over the details or imagining that we could have still fought the war but been a bit more picky about how we did it, just, you know, to avoid upsetting the horses.

Vietnam - well it seemed like a good idea at the time. They went in with the best of intentions. Once again context is everything and you can't morally judge the actions of the past from the point of view of the present. Unless you are some sort of lefty-revisionist historian of course in which case it is your raison d'etre. But IMO those sort of people want a good slap.