[greedo]

You have the privilege of tarring the commanders of US forces as war criminals "of the highest gravity" because of the sacrifices US soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines made during WW2.

If you haven't already, do some research on how the Japanese fought at Okinawa. At the defensive plans they had in place for defending the Home Islands. The toll of an invasion would have been horrendous for both sides. This is without dispute by serious historians.

Your idea that the Japanese were "relatively contained," implying that there was no need to do any further action is almost laughable as a military or political strategy.

When you go to war, you should go to war til the other side cries "Uncle."

Furthermore, the idea that war should be "proportional" is also a sophomoric argument without merit. War is hell for a reason. If someone engages you in war, you fight them to the death. You don't go back and forth in a tit for tat manner that negates all of your advantages and magnifies theirs.

And to lump the A bombs with what Japan did to China? Read up on the Rape of Nanking. Or find out how many Chinese civilians the Japanese Army killed on the mainland. Or how they treated POWs during the Bataan Death March.

War is hell.

[levosmetalo]

> Furthermore, the idea that war should be "proportional" is also a sophomoric argument without merit. War is hell for a reason. If someone engages you in war, you fight them to the death. You don't go back and forth in a tit for tat manner that negates all of your advantages and magnifies theirs.

Did you just agree that people, army and paramilitary forces of Afghanistan are right to go to total war "to death" with the USA, USA army and USA civilians. Because even one innocent dead man in Afghanistan can justify action of, for example, poisoning NYC water supplies?

Or this "unproporional" punishment of enemy is justified only if it's the USA that is doing it, not when it suffers it?

[greedo]

I think it's entirely justifiable for any afghani to be joining the Taliban and fighting to kick out a foreign invader from their soil. Everyone has a right to defend their country's sovereignty.

I personally wouldn't advocate targeting civilians; but if there was no alternative, and my culture, country and way of life was being destroyed, I could see a rational actor choosing to do so.

The US would have been far better served by simply conducting a punitive raid in AFG to knock over the original Taliban and let the assorted tribes learn not to stir the hornets nest. Instead we've decimated the country without creating any real change. And we've also grown accustomed to a sanitized style of warfare where drone operators in Creech, Nevada plink small targets without working up a sweat.

War should be hell, lest we grow to like it too much.

[kalms]

The United States dropped two very big bombs on cities. Cities, not military installations. That's very close to being a war criminal in my opinion, realities of war be damned.

Edit:

> You have the privilege of tarring the commanders of US forces as war criminals "of the highest gravity" because of the sacrifices US soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines made during WW2.

In reality, we Europeans have the privilege because of United Kingdom, Soviet, United States, Canada, Finland, and countless volunteers and freedom fighters from the occupied areas. I appreciate the sacrifices, suffering and determination from a nation I so admire; in fact we celebrate it once a year, but please remember that United States were never alone in the fight.

[greedo]

I didn't mean to imply that the US was the sole combatant; I was responding to the parent who was an American.

War is still hell. The Romans razed Carthage, a war crime? The Germans in WW1 bombed London, war crime? The British torched Dresden, war crime? The Nazis bombed Rotterdam, war crime?

It's far too easy to conflate "war" with war crime. Some feel that the two are synonymous. I think each generation has a tendency to feel superior and more advanced than the previous generation; I think this is naive and ill informed. We're all savages of a sort.

[kalms]

"Now we are all sons of bitches." — Kenneth Bainbridge

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

I'm not even saying that I would act differently if I were a military commander. War is hell, granted. But that doesn't make it right, and we should be honest with ourselves. It's not right. Killing innocents is not okay; using civilians as leverage in an act of terror is never okay.

We should strive to be better than that.

[greedo]

Striving is fine, but as some sage once said, "your enemy always has a vote." We're limited in how we act by how our opponents behave. And despite what Fukuyama said, I think that we'll see more conflict in this century than anyone expects.

[vidarh]

Their actions can be necessary, and still war crimes and/or abhorrent. These are not mutually exclusive.

We can be grateful for the outcome and many sacrifices and still speculate about whether or not specific actions were necessary and justifiable.

And we can actually recognise the atrocities committed by the Japanese military and question actions by the allies at the same time.

It is understandable that a lot of decisions were taken that had horrible outcomes, and that many of them were taken in good faith and probably the only viable decisions despite how atrocious they might seem in retrospect. That does not mean we should just gloss over everything.