Not for the sake of philosophy, but for the sake of civillians. I feel that civillians are less deservant of dying than soldiers, you think the opposite, as we have discussed previously.
Che Guevara
- Thread starter Shay Given
- Start date
- Replies 159
- Views 9K
Not for the sake of philosophy, but for the sake of civillians. I feel that civillians are less deservant of dying than soldiers, you think the opposite, as we have discussed previously.
The civilians would have died anyway, and in far greater numbers. So that's kind of moot saying that
We've moved on from the soldiers argument. ¬.¬ And I never said I personally believed in either, I said you can't judge a civilian life as less than that of a soldier - Difference.
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The civilians wouldnt have died unless the americans decided to turn on civilians.
Yep, because every time a civilian has died in wartime conflict is because the invading nation decided to turn away from the mission and shoot some civilians, just for kicks.
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well obviously they is some civilians killed by accident or due to incompetence. But to say that quarter of a million civilians would die is wrong, unless your assuming that the Americans just opened fire when they landed on Japan.
Oh for goodness sakes.
Do the research. In the Battle of Saipan 20,000 civilians voluntarily threw themselves off cliffs after Hirohito encouraged them to.
The Americans didn't kill them, they killed themselves. That way they would be accorded equal spiritual status in the afterlife to soldiers who died in combat. There is nothing to suggest that this wouldn't happen in Japan.
ok clearly you dont know anything about japan in the second world war. do some actual research before making a ridiculous weak point
pistolped7
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 2,566
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Despite being very interested in Cuba, Communism and the Cold War as a whole I know very little about Che Guevara himself. Found this thread very interesting, and more or less what I've got from it is that Che was a man whose intentions were good, but some of his actions were less so. That about right?
Also, I think the notion that a soldier's life is less valuable than a regular civilian's is wrong and, frankly, disgusting. These men have willingly laid their lives on the line to protect said civilians, and the way many people treat them in response is embarrassing.
Also, I think the notion that a soldier's life is less valuable than a regular civilian's is wrong and, frankly, disgusting. These men have willingly laid their lives on the line to protect said civilians, and the way many people treat them in response is embarrassing.
The Japanese people, emperor, soldier, politician, civilian, believed in death before surrender. Civilian men strapped grenades to their chest, while women carried their children in their arms as they jumped off the cliff. They were taught that if the americans came to their doorstep to "bury them with their bodies". They would have fought alongside the remaining homeguard.
If you are gonna argue a point, do the research first
Last edited:
Pretty much. He was a flawed character, who acheived a considerable amount of good, but did an almost equal amount of bad
pistolped7
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 2,566
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I see, thanks for explaining.
This is my take though, some see him as a villian, others as a hero
Lol i knew what you meant though. It was a terrible end to a terrible war, whatever way we look at it.
pistolped7
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 2,566
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well, from what's been said, it's difficult to put one tag or the other on him tbh. I think I'd be leaning more towards hero than villain, because he seems to have genuinely wanted to do good, but some of his actions have been far from heroic. Obviously an incredibly interesting guy, but the most in-depth read I've ever had about him was a few months ago in FourFourTwo, which was really good. About how football impacted his life, etc.
Are you * sane ? Dropping A-bombs is better than some other act ? Sorry for saying this, and I deserve infraction, but you are one stupid *... What about next generations, people being born with 12 fingers ( or much, much worse) ? A-bombs didn't just killed 250k, they killed every form of life in next 50km. What about level of radiation ? If A-bomb was last resort, OK, I would approve, but just to get even for Pearl Harbor, I really don't understand.<br>http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html
* as I don't want to get banned.
* as I don't want to get banned.
grow up, do some research. nothing to do with getting even. It was the last resort. we have been over this so many times, how can you possibly not understand that? instead of harbouring hatred against the US and Nato, read up on the entire pacific war, especially about the japanese. and you will understand why.
They did drop regular bombs, they had been doing so for a long while, they warned of the consequences, then dropped the first. they still refused to surrender. they dropped the second, even then they still refused, it was only when the Emperor overuled them, and they found out that the americans had 100 more nukes( it was a lie told by a captured american pilot, one that saved many lives) that they agreed, and even then, some generals tried to organise a coup so they could carry on fighting