Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (791)	12/19/2002 12:58:20 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

I am not contesting the possible outcome of more deaths. That is possible, although by no means certain, as I am sure you will agree. Conventional war would mostly claim casualties from among the fighting men. This was deliberate killing of the civilian population of two cities, and as such, seems to fall under war crimes (and also crimes against humanity) to me. I am not a lawyer but the definition is clear. It is as sure as most things can be that had we not dropped the atomic bombs, there would have had to have been a massive invasion involving tremendously greater loss of life on both sides..... I am not so sure. The civilian population of women, children and old people incapable of resisting an invasion would basically survive, even if the invading army killed off everyone who resisted them. If you mean to say that there would be less casualties on American side, that is probably correct. But it is hardly an excuse to put forth - "We killed two cities of civilians because we did not want our soldiers to die" just does not sound too good for some reason.