Sartrouville (27–28 May 1944, 400 dead), Orléans (19 and 23 May 1944, 300 dead), Saint-Etienne (26 May 1944, more than 1,000 dead), Lyon (26 May 1944, 717 dead), Marseille (27 May 1944, 1,752 dead), Avignon (27 May 1944, 525 dead), Lisieux (6–7 June 1944, 700 dead), Vire (6–7 June 1944, 400 dead), Caen (6–7 June 1944, more than 1,000 dead), Le Havre (5–11 September 1944, more than 5,000 dead), Royan (5 January 1945, 1,700 dead), etc
Living under oppression, they didn't deserve to die, yet we intended them to die if they worked and lived in the ports and factories and other facilities the Allies needed to destroy if we were to have a chance of holding the beachhead.
We honor their deaths but don't regret what had to be done.
Sorry Frenchies, we were unevolved.
If we had been we would have miraculously vanquished the Nazis without civilian casualties.
Ya know like having something like a drone track and target Hitler and Rommel, maybe after the Red Cross had planted something on them
According to your logic in the other thread, they deserved to be bombed and die.
Or is this about them being Europeans instead of Afghans, Pakistanis or Iraqis?
Or more like you are trying to re-spin your earlier justification and support for remorseless killing of innocent people into your current "we don't regret what had to be done" bullshit.
I hope to God that the U.S. soldiers that marched through afterward didn't turn to French civilians and say "We're not sorry and you deserved it," like you have said.
Probably not, but we were too busy getting flowers and kisses and whatnot from Parisian babes and then getting mown down in Arnhem and the Battle of the Bulge to bother with it.
But hen our fathers were unevolved
Parisian babes? They wouldn't have been in Paris yet.
I'm not into your whole evolution thing, but it is despicable to not feel sorry and regret those deaths.
Could you do America and the WWII vets a favor and no longer refer to yourself as part of "we" related to WWII civilian deaths?
I doubt many of them were as callous about civilian deaths as you.
So those who actually perpetrated the actions in their unevolved state (according the Chile) would be offended by their son, the monster, identifying with them as fellow Americans and defending them. Got it.
At the time did we shout out from planes, sorry. Or put in a dummy artillery shell every so often with an apology on it.
No they took Paris, sampled the ladies, and moved on to die some more
No, you don't get it.
You think you are defending them, but you are simply advocating a position that justifies the remorseless killing of civilians who are declared guilty and deserving of death according to you based upon their proximity to some target.
That has nothing to do with defending them.
You didn't bring up this example to defend them because no one was talking about them until you brought it up and tried to use it to justify your own disregard for innocent life.
But, so far, while there is evidence that they did kill innocent civilians, there is no evidence that they felt no regret and were not sorry for what happened to those French people.
If there is an insult to them, it is an insult by yourself to compare your own callous disregard for human life to their attitudes, whatever they might have been.
I still have one very close friend who is a WWII vet (others have died) and I've heard nothing but regret about the deaths of WWII, including even the German soldiers.
So, no, you are not defending them or representing their opinions at all.
At least they weren't turned into Zombies.
I think the world isnt ready for a French zombie movie.
Wait I take that back.
The Socialists are back in control in France, that's about the same thing
1944 we didn't have much choice but to carpet bomb a military production facility.
We pay billions for "smart weapons". we wouldn't have to do that now and we wouldn't.
And we don't, that's right.
Thanks for conceding
Regret is a precious commodity, and I have no problem with it being used retrospectively.
I take my bestest President's lead on this.
At the beginning of the war, he saw a time when "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Those words spoken in 1861 were completely different from what had to be done for the next 4.
After a million casualties and seeing the war coming to an end, his compassion returned.
"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan"
But, but, but - in the same speech, his last speech, his 2nd inaugural, just the previous paragraph, Lincoln believed that the war "continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword" --- in other words until the South unconditionally surrendered, he would continue to have the Union army wreak death and destruction on them.
we also wouldn't have bombed a bakery because some soldiers were sitting there.
I don't know about that, but we certainly would if Rommel or Himmler were sitting there
Yeah. Hitler. Got it.
Getting Hitler, nah that was Tom Cruise.
Valkrie, good movie, true story. But what about the poor guy serving crullers??
I just now read this thread and I guess somewhere along the way lost sight of why it was even started. I don't get the reasoning behind it. Why DID you start it?
Robert started it because everything relates to WW2.
He thinks attacking Pakistanis who may or may not be terrorists or militants and all those in their proximity is the same as bombing a nazi factory in ww2.
Yes Mary, he is an idiot.
Taint that sweet?
Someone can retionally discuss the moral quandarys of war and one can't.
Let you decide which
rational discussion? comparing modern day "war on terror" to WW2 and the civil war?
If we knew that bombing Germany created more nazi's would we continue to do it?
Why didn't it create more French Nazis?
Or maybe it did and we didn't care as long as victory was in sight and let DeGaulle take care if the rest
There were plenty of French Nazis. You do know that don't ya?
I think it only makes sense that for those innocents who die, no matter what side, it will create an atmosphere amongst some to join the fight. Goes for any in battle, either side.
Human nature to protect, defend and honor your own.
Just like 911 made me a believer in standing strong for those innocents who died. If the battle were in my backyard, I'd be in it to win it too....
This post was modified from its original form on 11 Jun, 5:11
There were plenty of French Nazis
Still not the point, You do know that, Don't ya? Nazis were nazis, nothing to do with allied actions.
If your actions perpetuate the creation of your enemies, do you continue to repeat the same actions? There is some quote about insanity that may apply....
What are we winning Suzzanne? Bombing civilians and Militants to create more terrorists and militants?
Chile, that is not what I meant at all. We have a serious communication problem at times it would seem.
I was merely asking a question.
You see then if it was a question only, then the communication problem is on my part. Still there though...
I wish there was a way to stop it all. It will never end, the fault lies with all parties. If the US was to stop today. Do you think they will? I don't.
I don't forsee (well for at least as long as we are the most powerful country in the world) a time when there will ever by people that don't hate us, despise us, want us dead, etc....
so what do we do?
"do I think they will?". What can they do?
Chile, I think right now these people have not and will not ever love us because we are not them. We do not believe in their religious way of thinking or living. That is the people we fight.
That has nothing to do with our power and everything to do with we are not them.
And jihadis were jihadis before we were doing any bombings.
And jihadi agenda is 99% not about US at all just like Nazi agenda
I don't disagree. But what makes the escalation between - I don't like you and I will actively try to cross the ocean and kill you?
I would argue a few things, like droning them and having our corporations destroy and steal their natural resources would create that result.
Good latency today...
As usual, the CIA disagrees with Robert.
Who's to know really? So long this has gone on...
Who knows if we had just never interacted in any way, what would be the case? They treat their own women like possessions. To be told what to do. Who knows, if just modernization would have caused this on its own.
I agree it adds fuel to the fire, but the fire already burned.
but the fire already burned
Really? it just started out of nowhere? Nothing inflamed it, sparked it, fanned it, fueled it?
Spontaneous combustion, like in Spinal Tap?
Chile, have their not been relgious wars and battles fought since the beginning of time?
Or did it just start in 2001?
That's what I mean, wiseass...
their = there
They have. But typically they are fought when one religion is moving in on anothers "territory"....
You know, infidels on the holy land in Saudi Arabia... AKA one of the main reasons for 911, according to OBL
Stuff like that.
Yeah, but there is more to it also. I wouldn't want to speak for anyone's intentions, goals.
Who knows for sure?
Like I said, we add fuel to a fire that has been burning forever. Just as they add fuel. Two sides contributing create a major blaze.
I think to just say it has gone on forever (like a fair amount of Americans do) is just a way to avoid the issue. No one needed to hijack planes and inflict damage on another country across an ocean to damage someone because they don't share their religious beliefs.
Take Iran for example -- a country we don't have the greatest relations with. We did have good relations after WW2 and Iran liked us, even though our religion is different. Then in 1953 the US overthrew their government and relations changed. Is this just a case of things always being that way or that we are not like them?
Uhh Russia and Britain with our acceptance had already done a coup in 1941.
it is also well known that the ayatollahs were on our side and provided most of the mobs for the 1953 coup so this whole thing of the 1979 revolution as against that is fairly phony
Yeah of course, the revolutionaries in 1979 who were pissed at the Shah's reign of oppression and violence and his US backing must have been phonies because of some ayatollahs in 1953.
And then Russia and Britain in 1941 and Stalin and Mao and all...
Bryan, to blame it all on America and not take into considersation any other factors, like many Americans is also not right.
I know our actions over time have incited many acts, my point is who is to say this is the only reason for those acts.
They would never appreciate someone like me, because I would never submit to their shyte.
Like it or not, strategy and tactics that would be totally off the table today were fine back in WW II. Remember Curtis LeMay?
Suzanne, Well i just think it comes down to a nation should be responsible for its acts. Any nation. It does seem you're saying the real cause of conflict is because we are a different religion and culture.
I don't think it's a choice between saying all violence is the fault of the US, or the US can't be blamed because others also do bad things.
As far as elements of Islamic culture that many in our culture, including myself, disagree with, i think the very worst thing we can do is give fundamentalists and extemists in that culture more power by dutifully playing the role of "the great Satan" by invading countries, supporting oppresive regimes, killing civilians, and imprisoning people for many years with no process of law. That is exactly what we continue to do.
Bryan, I don't think that is what I am saying at all. I am saying it has been and will always be a part of the discussion. I guess not for all though.
“I just now read this thread and I guess somewhere along the way lost sight of why it was even started. I don't get the reasoning behind it. Why DID you start it?”—Mary
Because he thinks that if he can show that Americans killed civilians in other circumstances, then it justifies his support for killing civilians without any regret.
You know, if Abraham Lincoln realized that he would have to kill Southerners to keep the union and end slavery, then that is the same thing as not giving a damn if the U.S. kills innocent Afghans and Iraqis now.
“There were plenty of French Nazis. You do know that don't ya?”—Robert
Yes, but they were there before the U.S. bombed French civilians.
You don’t give a damn about actually knowing and learning from WWII history, but rather you just cherry-pick nonsense based upon your current political agenda.
“Just like 911 made me a believer in standing strong for those innocents who died. If the battle were in my backyard, I'd be in it to win it too....”—Suzanne
I agree and believe it should also make us that much more considerate of the reaction to our own killing of innocent civilians.
"Like it or not, strategy and tactics that would be totally off the table today were fine back in WW II. Remember Curtis LeMay?"--Dan
I don't think they were "fine" in WWII, but they were used. There is a difference between regretting that you must do something during a war and just declaring that whomever you kill deserves it.
Even General LeMay said that if the US had lost the war he would have been prosecuted as a war criminal.
They also aren't off the table now. We have nukes that we are willling to use in conflicts and they are many times worse than the firebombings by LeMay in WWII.