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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (161328)	5/3/2005 12:47:40 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

How about answering my question before we move on to yours? Its not moving on, its moving back. Its clarifying the ideas in the posts that originally led to your response with your questions. The exact numbers to answer your questions are hard to get, and aren't really relevant unless you are asserting that the American military has acted as a bunch of wanton murderers in the various conflicts that you ask about. I don't have the exact ratios for WWII and Vietnam, but in WWII we destroyed cities with our bombing both conventional and nuclear. We also blockaded Japan. Before the end of the war our submarines were sinking just about any merchant traffic to or from Japan, there wasn't any special exemption for food. Certainly the numbers of civilians killed in WWII, or even just the number of civilians killed by allied forces, was far higher then in Vietnam. In Vietnam, improved technology, combined with a more quickly dominant military position made it possible to be more careful in terms of trying to avoid civilian death, and the politics of the time gave more incentive to try and avoid civilian death. WWII was total war, Vietnam was not. Tim