US/NATO rule out halt to expansion,reject Russia demands.

I am not an expert in the UK's bombing campaign, but I suspect that an expert could establish that the UK had a military objective for the firestorm that they caused in Dresden.

As far as the death toll goes:

Hiroshima: 70,000
Nagasaki: 40,000
Dresden: 25,000

 

Sounds like you are making up a narrative to suit what you want to believe.

So dropping a leaflet makes it OK? Sure, if that makes you feel better.

I'm not. The Serbs were worse. A LOT worse.

 

The awards were given for an action that included the sinking of a ship and the shooting of those in the water. The killing of those in the water was known. No attempt was made by the submarine to hide it from the Navy.

 

I know that in the case of the US, our mass bombings were intended to destroy legitimate targets. I merely suspect that the same sort of case can be made for the UK.

Yes. Dropping leaflets to warn civilians to flee makes it OK to attack an industrial target.

I understand that they were worse.

I'm not convinced that they were massively worse.

 

It is clear from your posts on this topic that there is something you want and need to believe and something you simply cannot accept. As a result you are constructing imaginary narratives and throwing up the sort of justifications that would never be accepted if the 'other side' were doing it. It isn't my job to try to unpick that sort of conditioning.

For my part I mostly agree with the strategic bombing campaigns. I understand that it was necessary to not only degrade military assets, but also the capacity of populations that keep those militaries in the field to do so. The war unleashed by Nazi Germany & Japan was a Total War. They set rules they could not win by.

There were times, however, when those bombing campaigns shifted beyond the sort of 'kill industry' thinking that you are fixated on. At various points revenge, the notion of impacting 'morale', the desire to force redeployment of resources and sheer indifference led to the targetting of areas packed with civillians. The people doing it knew what they were doing and it was not done without controversy, but claiming it was all just about 'targetting industry' is quite literally rewriting history. I am not prepared to do that.

I just accept that some bad things were done to achieve ends that were not only good, but vital for humanity. I don't define the Western Allied cause by these acts & nor do I pretend that they come anything close to the scale or nature of atrocities committed by the Axis powers and some of their puppets (with the exception of Italy, whose atrocities mostly happened pre-war). But they did happen. Believe it, don't believe it, I've said my bit.

Pleased to hear it.

You are free to believe as you wish.

 

A ceasefire was signed by both sides on Oct 15 1998.
Come off it.

Serbia engaging in ethnic cleansing is what got them bombed in the first place in the early 90's.

That is simply wildly incorrect. You have your timeline wrong.

You don't get just one. One nuclear power using nukes in active conflicts means the others will too. Common use of nuclear weapons is a suicidally foolish proposition.

 

Well, your post is full of bullshit.

 

It wouldn't have been bad if Stalin weren't such a ******.

 

I thought you were referring to the ceasefire proposal that led to the bombing.

That earlier ceasefire that you are referring to was violated by all sides.

That has nothing to do with Kosovo in 1999.

All sides committed ethnic cleansing in that earlier conflict.

I am not wrong. Serbia did not engage in any ethnic cleansing in Kosovo until after NATO started their massive bombardment.

Whatever the downsides, using nukes is a lot better than surrendering.

 

My narratives are not imaginary. I am stating the truth.

I see no problem with my justifications.

Can you provide any examples of US warplanes intentionally targeting civilians?

 

Keep on moving those goalposts

It was violated first as I've related, and when one side violates a cease fire the cease fire is not violated by returning fire. You start the conflict again, you don't get to complain when someone is no longer halted from pushing your **** in like its your first day in the showers at the fed pen. Maybe don't thumb your nose at NATO when they tell you to knock it the **** off.

Sure it does.

No they didn't.

Yes, they did.

MAD is slightly better than living under the commies. But only slightly, and your strategy of lobbing nukes for no particular reason isn't a good one.

 

I have not moved any goalpost.

Let's see some evidence that Serbia violated the ceasefire first.

That is incorrect. War crimes in Bosnia have nothing to do with war crimes in Kosovo.

That is incorrect. All sides committed ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.

That is incorrect. Serbia did not conduct ethnic cleansing in Kosovo until after NATO started their massive bombing campaign.

Slightly is enough.

No such strategy. I would only have us lob nukes for a very good reason.