It’s Called WAR!

As I watched the “debates” last night, it occurred to me that darn few candidates — and no people asking questions (including off the Internet) would have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Further, none would have fire bombed Tokyo, or destroyed Berlin or Dresden.
Which means the British would have had to accept the destruction of Coventry and London without retaliating.

You see…none of the cities named had much military (or any) significance. All were civilian centers.

So, this is the question, paraphrased, for Mr. Truman, and in his absence, you:

“Mr. President, we can drop the bomb on Hiroshima and kill perhaps 100,000 civilians, or we can invade the main islands of Japan at the cost of a million American casualties…200,000 dead, 800,000 wounded”

You need to answer that, and so do the candidates.

And, if your answer is “No,” to paraphrase Trump, “So, they can kill our families, and we can’t kill theirs?”

Yes, killing families are against the Geneva Convention, but that document is as one-sided as the bombing question is — Al-Queda didn’t sign the Geneva Convention, and neither did Daesh.

So, as usual we are asked to behave by the Marquis of Queensberry Rules, and they get to use the Marque de Sade’s Rules?

NO! NO! NO!

Now we do have limits, or should. We shouldn’t behead or execute innocents…or burn them to death in cages.

Should we “water board?”

Judicially, yes!

But “Sanctuaries?”

 No! Not in San Francisco or Raqqa!

There are only so many advantages we can cede to an enemy.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: