Former Lt. Gov. of Texas helped Bush avoid Vietnam combat (aka Leave Kerry Alone)

[Angela Harlem]

The only difference is the positive slant on the reply, actually. No one is trying to infer the US military involved in the Vietnam war are all criminals or genocidal murderers. We're talking about war here, remember. It isn't time for anyone to sit down and make daisy chains. It is every day men and women killing other every day men and women. Anyone involved in any type of combat or war scenario has to step outside their every day mindset and think about things just a little bloody differently. It is necessary when it is asked that men and women like all of us here are expected to pick up a weapon and kill another human being. Yes lets not get too carried away with the negatives, but same for the postives. Keep in mind that it is this very thought which makes many so adamantly against all war.

And your claim that no other military is as respect for civilian life as the US is a gross generalisation, and frankly offensive.

 

[A_Wanderer]

War is bad, but it is a tool to stop greater evil - the greatest mistake of the latter 20th Century was tricking ourselves into thinking that there is nothing worth fighting for.

 

[Scarletwine]

To put this back OT (somehow the only reply Bush supporters have is to attack Kerry not answer the charges, very similar to how every topic prior to the election turned to what Clinton did).

Bush = Fortunate Son

The Texan will be on CBS Wednesday.

 

[verte76]

You're right, Angela, war is hell, no matter who's fighting it. I think any and all fighting forces try to minimize bloodshed, but there's really no way around this, and there's never been a war fought without some really ugly stuff. I'm very weak in military history, but I do know it was a different story in the Middle Ages, when the best fighters in Europe were, believe it or not, Swiss mercenaries. Switzerland didn't adopt its neutrality stance until the nineteenth century. In the Middle Ages the Swiss mercenaries had a very offensive, as opposed to defensive, fighting method. It was very successful, they went for 200 years without losing a battle, but they had really high casualties. I sure would have hated being on the wrong side of one of those Swiss pikes. Those are very sharp, metallic objects that are still on exhibit in a museum in Switzerland.

 

[STING2]

The only difference is the positive slant on the reply, actually. No one is trying to infer the US military involved in the Vietnam war are all criminals or genocidal murderers. We're talking about war here, remember. It isn't time for anyone to sit down and make daisy chains. It is every day men and women killing other every day men and women. Anyone involved in any type of combat or war scenario has to step outside their every day mindset and think about things just a little bloody differently. It is necessary when it is asked that men and women like all of us here are expected to pick up a weapon and kill another human being. Yes lets not get too carried away with the negatives, but same for the postives. Keep in mind that it is this very thought which makes many so adamantly against all war.

And your claim that no other military is as respect for civilian life as the US is a gross generalisation, and frankly offensive.

No, that is not a gross generalization, but a fact arrived at from studying the situation. There is no other country in the world that invest more money in high tech weapons, which by virtue of their accuracy save civilian lives. No other country in the world invest more money into research for non-lethal weapon systems. No other country in the world invest more money in the training of its military force which obviously reduces losses on all sides in any conflict. By having the strongest military force possible, one is best able to reduce and keep to minimum the level of loss to civilians.

The United States will spend 420 Billion on the military this year alone.


John Kerry indeed refered to the military as war criminals. He was apart of the VVAW which said some of the most inaccurate, disgusting and offensive things about US veterans.

In war, you do your job as you have been trained to do. You execute the operation to the very best of your ability. There is no time for stepping outside yourself or anything. No time for philosophical pondering. There is only time to execute the operation and save as many lives as one can in the process by doing so. The quicker and more decisive the military conflict is, the easier it will be for the victor to save lives on all sides of the conflict, if they choose too.

 

[STING2]

You're right, Angela, war is hell, no matter who's fighting it. I think any and all fighting forces try to minimize bloodshed, but there's really no way around this, and there's never been a war fought without some really ugly stuff. I'm very weak in military history, but I do know it was a different story in the Middle Ages, when the best fighters in Europe were, believe it or not, Swiss mercenaries. Switzerland didn't adopt its neutrality stance until the nineteenth century. In the Middle Ages the Swiss mercenaries had a very offensive, as opposed to defensive, fighting method. It was very successful, they went for 200 years without losing a battle, but they had really high casualties. I sure would have hated being on the wrong side of one of those Swiss pikes. Those are very sharp, metallic objects that are still on exhibit in a museum in Switzerland.

Few military's try to minimize bloodshed, especially in the third world. Often, lack of modern technology, lack of training, will result in very large numbers of civilian causulties. Also, it is often the objective of certain countries to inflict as much loss of life as possible, like Nazi Germany etc, in many situations.

In order to minimize the loss of civilian life, one has to invest large somes of money in the military to have an advanced force that is well trained and equipped with the latest technology. Many countries simply do not have that much money and it is also not really an important goal for them. Others do have the money but refuse to invest sufficiently in the military.

But the fact remains that the country that invest the most money in its military and either has or is able to get the best technology available will have the means to keep civilian loss of life in any conflict, down to the lowest minimum possible.

No one here is saying that there can now be wars without civilian loss of life. But there is a way to keep the level of loss down significantly, and countries that have invested sufficiently in their military's will have the capability to do this.

For example, in order to have destroyed all the military targets in Baghdad, during the war to remove Saddam from power, with World War II technology, it would have required essentially destroying the entire city. Instead, over 99% of Baghdad was untouched by any of the damage of the precision bombing from the air.

 

[Scarletwine]

You are talking about today's reality not the Vietnam era.
Then Napalm and Agent Orange were constant. Also what about the thousands of bomblets left in Cambodia (of course we were never there).

IMO the use of cluster bombs or the new type of napalm that burnt any vestige of Sadaams troups away is a matter of genocide as those used previouly, for example the carpet bombing of Germany if you want to go back farther.

War is never pretty especially when it can be avoided.

 

[sharky]

If you want proof that these atrocities were taking place in Vietnam, you need look no further than the Pulitzer Award winning coverage from the Toledo Blade. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE Kerry wasn't attacking vets, he was stating stories he had heard directly from these Vets about what they did in Vietnam.

As for this Lt. Gov., he specifically says he is ashamed walking around the Vietnam Vets Memorial, seeing all the names knowing those men died while he was giving free rides to big wigs and bigger campaign contributors. He has been quiet for a long time due to black mail from Bush campaigns over the years that they would destroy his political career if he came forward. He's ashamed, he's retired and he has nothing to lose. He's admitting his mistake, which is more than Bush has done when it comes to all the things he's messed up during his presidency.

 

[STING2]

If you want proof that these atrocities were taking place in Vietnam, you need look no further than the Pulitzer Award winning coverage from the Toledo Blade. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE Kerry wasn't attacking vets, he was stating stories he had heard directly from these Vets about what they did in Vietnam.

As for this Lt. Gov., he specifically says he is ashamed walking around the Vietnam Vets Memorial, seeing all the names knowing those men died while he was giving free rides to big wigs and bigger campaign contributors. He has been quiet for a long time due to black mail from Bush campaigns over the years that they would destroy his political career if he came forward. He's ashamed, he's retired and he has nothing to lose. He's admitting his mistake, which is more than Bush has done when it comes to all the things he's messed up during his presidency.

Unfortunately the link you posted does not work, but I doubt it will be able to refute what has been said by millions of veterans of the war. I've seen so called evidence of Israely military atrocities only to find that the "evidence" did not prove anything.

Kerry stated in his testimony that the criminal acts were not isolated occurances but very common and ordered or approved by ALL officers at every level of command. This is gross distortion of an incredible magnitude.

No one has said that No atrocities ever occured. Abuse has occured in all wars, as well as in every police department at one time or another through out the world. But John Kerry's testimony before congress was inaccurate, offensive, and disgusting.

 

[STING2]

You are talking about today's reality not the Vietnam era.
Then Napalm and Agent Orange were constant. Also what about the thousands of bomblets left in Cambodia (of course we were never there).

IMO the use of cluster bombs or the new type of napalm that burnt any vestige of Sadaams troups away is a matter of genocide as those used previouly, for example the carpet bombing of Germany if you want to go back farther.

War is never pretty especially when it can be avoided.

Napalm was a good weapon at destroying large concentrations of enemy infantry. It saved thousands of soldiers lives and helped to defeat the enemy in many instances. The effectiveness of Agent Orange is questionable. As far as Cambodia goes, the United States or South Vietnames forces should be deployed large number of troops there to deny the North Vietnames those bases they used to attack South Vietnam with. Simply bombing the trails was not enough, although it was indeed necessary if one did not send in ground troops.

No, the use of cluster bombs or napalm is not genocide. These weapons are used against enemy forces in the field of battle. The targeting of enemy troops in battle is never genocide. The carpet bombing of Germany was necessary to achieve the destruction of German industry and as well as military units. Precision bombing technology did not exist back then, and carpet bombing was often the only way to insure the destruction of these key targets. Such bombing helped bring World War II to an end more quickly, thus saving potentially millions of lives in the process.

 

[sharky]

stupid computer. don't know why that link didn't work -- just go to toledoblade.com. a link to the story is on the front page as "Winner of Pulitzer: Tiger Foce: Buried Secrets, Brutal Truth" and is told from the soldiers who committed these acts.

 

[Klaus]

Sting

The targeting of enemy troops in battle is never genocide. The carpet bombing of Germany was necessary to achieve the destruction of German industry and as well as military units.

So tell me which industry and military units had to be destroyed in Darmstadt or Dresden?

afik Darmstadt was just a testing a new way of bombing and because Darmstadt didn't have military units or military industry they didn't even have bomb-shelters.
-> ~1/2 hour where more than 12.000 civilists died

So i also think, sometimes war is just ugly and many things are just no war crimes because the winner writes history.

But still this number of victims is smalled compared to how many Russians died every day in Worldwar II

 

[BestDrummer]

Attacking kerry? hmmmmm! seems to me that the better part of this year kerry has been attacking bush... now bush is giving kerry a taste of his own medicine. ANYWAYS as long as kerry says bush is worse then hitler then i think bush can say whatever the hell he wants and still be in bounds. Come on!!! people hold Bush to a higher and double standard. So what if he wanted to stay out of the dangers of the war.. i dont blame at all! atleast he dint leave his comrads and go off on vacation for christmas during the war.
Jhon Kerry dishonored many of the men in my family who went to this war. Jhon kerry accuses my family name of being CRIMINALS for going to vietnam and saying things like cutting off heads torturing many of innocent lives. during that speach in 1971 he accuses all of the americans for those deeds.
when kerry dies i will go to his grave and urinate on the namestone.

 

[STING2]

stupid computer. don't know why that link didn't work -- just go to toledoblade.com. a link to the story is on the front page as "Winner of Pulitzer: Tiger Foce: Buried Secrets, Brutal Truth" and is told from the soldiers who committed these acts.

I didn't seen anything on the page I went to. Also, do the soldiers who claim to have committed the brutal acts have any tangible evidence? Once again, were talking about John Kerry's claims that all officers at all levels of command either committed or approved of war crimes.

 

[STING2]

Sting



So tell me which industry and military units had to be destroyed in Darmstadt or Dresden?

afik Darmstadt was just a testing a new way of bombing and because Darmstadt didn't have military units or military industry they didn't even have bomb-shelters.
-> ~1/2 hour where more than 12.000 civilists died

So i also think, sometimes war is just ugly and many things are just no war crimes because the winner writes history.

But still this number of victims is smalled compared to how many Russians died every day in Worldwar II

Can you prove to me that there was not a single military unit, soldier, factory, industry, communication or transportation infrustructure, in Darmstadt or Dresden that could be used in some way by the German War machine?

 

[anitram]

No, that is not a gross generalization, but a fact arrived at from studying the situation. There is no other country in the world that invest more money in high tech weapons, which by virtue of their accuracy save civilian lives. No other country in the world invest more money into research for non-lethal weapon systems. No other country in the world invest more money in the training of its military force which obviously reduces losses on all sides in any conflict.

How many other countries don't go invading in the first place? You are arguing an impossible - for example, is the Canadian military less mindful of civilian life, because they spend less money, yet they also have not invaded countries and accidentally or not killed civilians as a result. Same goes for dozens of other places around the world...

 

[sharky]

toleloblade.com/tigerforce

And where are you getting this notion that Kerry said this happened at all levels? Where is the documentation for that? I could find nothing in his statement before congress in which he said that. Please verify that what you are saying is true.

As for Kerry telling the truth, why are you attacking his credibility? Because of the Swift Boat veterans, most of which have been discredited. Hell, John O'Neill was a lap dog for Nixon. Sorry, but I'm going to believe a man who spoke out against the horrors he saw both here and abroad any day over a shill for a crook and the only man who ever had to resign the presidency.

And why do people make it out to be John Kerry going against American troops? He spoke out to get our guys home from an unjust war. I hate the fact that conservatives today act as though speaking out against the war is anti-American. If we are sending our men and women out to fight and unjust war, it is our job as Americans to speak out against the government that sent them over in our name. We should never have dropped napalm on our own soldiers and we should never have sent troops into combat with their parents at home raising money to buy them kevlar vests. Different era, same issues.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If supporting the war is conservative then does that make Pat Buchannan a liberal?

 

[STING2]

toleloblade.com/tigerforce

And where are you getting this notion that Kerry said this happened at all levels? Where is the documentation for that? I could find nothing in his statement before congress in which he said that. Please verify that what you are saying is true.

As for Kerry telling the truth, why are you attacking his credibility? Because of the Swift Boat veterans, most of which have been discredited. Hell, John O'Neill was a lap dog for Nixon. Sorry, but I'm going to believe a man who spoke out against the horrors he saw both here and abroad any day over a shill for a crook and the only man who ever had to resign the presidency.

And why do people make it out to be John Kerry going against American troops? He spoke out to get our guys home from an unjust war. I hate the fact that conservatives today act as though speaking out against the war is anti-American. If we are sending our men and women out to fight and unjust war, it is our job as Americans to speak out against the government that sent them over in our name. We should never have dropped napalm on our own soldiers and we should never have sent troops into combat with their parents at home raising money to buy them kevlar vests. Different era, same issues.

Just some of the BS John Kerry presented to congress, direct quotes from his testimony.

"not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day to day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command"

"They relived the absolute horror of what this country has, in a sense, made them do."

"razed villiages in a fashion reminicient of Genghis Khan"

"We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold are silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds and not redcoats, but the crimes which we are committing threaten it, that we have to seak out."

"The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the forms of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped."

"In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos, by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocricy, and it is the kind of hypocricy which we feel has torn this country apart."

"we are probably angriest about all we were told about Vietnam and about the mystical war against communism."

"We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say non-third world people theater,"

"the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as a justification for the continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions"

"But all they have done and all they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war,"

"So what I am saying is yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United Sates of America,"

"Yes sir. I think we have a very definite obligation to make extensive reparations to the people of Indochina."

"It is my opinion that the United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers, and the foreign policy of John Foster Dulles which was responsible for the creation of the SEATO treaty, which was, in fact, a direct reaction to this so called Communist monolith. And I think we are reacting under Cold War precepts which are no longer applicable."

"Why do we have to, therefore, consider and keep considering threats?"

"but right now, we are reacting with paronoia to this question of peace and the people taking over the world."

"I think it is bogus, totally artificial. THERE IS NO THREAT. The Communist are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands."

" A lot of Guys, 60%, 80% stay stoned 24 hours a day just to get through the Vietnam"

 

[STING2]

What the Swift boat people have said has nothing to do with the scrutiny of John Kerry's Anti-War record. Even John McCain has come out and said that John Kerry's anti-war activities are an issue.

By the way, John Kerry now says he NEVER saw any atrocities in Vietnam. Fact is, John Kerry's anti-war activites are open for everyone to see. Its not like the service and medals issue. John Kerry went before congress and made inaccurate, offensive and disgusting statements about US veterans, the war, and the United States. He participated with a group that made gross and false accusations against US veterans and US military personal serving in Vietnam.

The Vietnam war was a just war and the vast majority of Americans had already come home when John Kerry made his testimony. By the end of 1971, there were only 20,000 US troops in Vietnam compared to 543,000 that were there in 1969.

Making false accusations against the US military and the United States in general is Anti-American. Both the war in Iraq and Vietnam were Just Wars, but of course people do have a right to protest them regardless. But in doing so, one should stay away from making false and baseless accusations against Veterans or the country. There are many legitimate ways to protest, but making inaccurate and baseless accusations against heroic and brave American military personal is not one of them.

If liberals were more willing to increase defense spending, perhaps some of the problems you listed would not have occured. The problem with body armor was primarily an issue with National Guard and Reserve troops who are typically in support area's. Indeed a problem though because of the nature of the war in Iraq, and one that is being corrected. I don't know which incident your refering to with Napalm, but if this did happen, its a friendly fire incident which is often difficult to 100% avoid. That being said, friendly fire incidence have greatly declined since World War II.

The link you sent for that site does not work. It would be better if you could copy and paste the entire address in your post.

 

[STING2]

How many other countries don't go invading in the first place? You are arguing an impossible - for example, is the Canadian military less mindful of civilian life, because they spend less money, yet they also have not invaded countries and accidentally or not killed civilians as a result. Same goes for dozens of other places around the world...

The Canadian military is actually under funded and when they do go into combat, they are at a greater probability of experiencing an accident leading to the loss of life than a military that has higher tech equipment and is better trained. Technology and training are the only ways you can reduce civilian loss of life in a war and in order to get that, you have to make a significant investment in your military.

The whole invasion of countries issue is irrelevant. The United States did not launch any unprovoked invasions. The wars were necessities, and far more people would die if people like the Taliban and Saddam were still in power.

 

[Klaus]

STING2
no i can't prove it, how could i.
But if the army sends you someday to germany or if you make holidays here i'd gladly show you some museums about this topic and, if you like, i can socialize with someone who lived in germany in that time so that you can hear a personal story about it.

Over all in Germany 600 000 people were killed by the mass-bombings of cities (yes, many times the cities were targeted and not the industrial complexes) the vast mayority of the 600 000 victims were old people, women and children (because everyone who was able to work was in the industrial complexes or had to defend his country)

Several former RAF people who were responsible for this admited that these bombings were a tactic to weaken the resistance of the germans but in the end my personal opinion is that the allied didn't win because of this bombings but despite these bombings.

The most controvercial person in this subject might have bin Sir "Bomber" Harris.

 

[sharky]

By the way, John Kerry now says he NEVER saw any atrocities in Vietnam. Fact is, John Kerry's anti-war activites are open for everyone to see. Its not like the service and medals issue. John Kerry went before congress and made inaccurate, offensive and disgusting statements about US veterans, the war, and the United States. He participated with a group that made gross and false accusations against US veterans and US military personal serving in Vietnam.

John Kerry never said he saw any of those things happen. If you read the detailed Senate testimony instead of believing those Swift Boat liars you would know this. It's right at the beginning.

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Try this link one last time Sting. If not, simply look up Tiger Force and Toledo Blade. [I previewed this link -- if it doesn't work, it may just be you.]

And going back to what the original topic, John Kerry has put all of his military records out there for everyone to see. Why won't Dubya do the same thing? He releases selected records, there is no verification he was where he was supposed to be. Hell, how do we even know Dubya deserved his medals? There have been no released transcripts from the administration saying why those were given. If he deserved his medals as much as John Kerry deserved his, Bush shouldn't be afraid to release the paperwork.

 

[STING2]

John Kerry never said he saw any of those things happen. If you read the detailed Senate testimony instead of believing those Swift Boat liars you would know this. It's right at the beginning.

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Try this link one last time Sting. If not, simply look up Tiger Force and Toledo Blade. [I previewed this link -- if it doesn't work, it may just be you.]

And going back to what the original topic, John Kerry has put all of his military records out there for everyone to see. Why won't Dubya do the same thing? He releases selected records, there is no verification he was where he was supposed to be. Hell, how do we even know Dubya deserved his medals? There have been no released transcripts from the administration saying why those were given. If he deserved his medals as much as John Kerry deserved his, Bush shouldn't be afraid to release the paperwork.

Let me explain something to you, I DON'T get my information from those in the Swift boat group.

I have read the entire testimony several times and it is inaccurate, offensive and disgusting!

"not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day to day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command"

The above qoute was the chief one you were asking me to reference before.

The fact that John Kerry would use these "stories" as well as his own assesments like where he claims these are not isolated incidents and were done at all levels of command shows the inaccuracy of his views and statements. By choosing to use "winter soldier" claims in his testimony, John Kerry embraces and supports those views and presents them as being the gospel truth which they are not.

The other things mentioned in his testimony are also inaccurate and offensive as well as I listed above with all the qoutes.

The whole medals thing and National Guard thing is irrelevent to my points here.

John Kerry attacked the veterans and his country and made inaccurate, offensive and disgusting statements before congress about veterans and the United States. He worked with a group that did even worse things and partipated in rally's and other things with people like Jane Fonda. John Kerry should appologize for his statements and actions during this time period that went far beyond simple political opposition to a particular foriegn policy.

 

[STING2]

STING2
no i can't prove it, how could i.
But if the army sends you someday to germany or if you make holidays here i'd gladly show you some museums about this topic and, if you like, i can socialize with someone who lived in germany in that time so that you can hear a personal story about it.

Over all in Germany 600 000 people were killed by the mass-bombings of cities (yes, many times the cities were targeted and not the industrial complexes) the vast mayority of the 600 000 victims were old people, women and children (because everyone who was able to work was in the industrial complexes or had to defend his country)

Several former RAF people who were responsible for this admited that these bombings were a tactic to weaken the resistance of the germans but in the end my personal opinion is that the allied didn't win because of this bombings but despite these bombings.

The most controvercial person in this subject might have bin Sir "Bomber" Harris.

Do the musuems and people you know prove that there was nothing that could support the war effort in these cities that were bombed? I am aware of a personality in Germany that would like to accuse the Allies of evil things sort of in away to lessen the facts of what Germany under Hitler did to the world. It is easier to deal with such a past like that if you can accuse the otherside of atrocities as well. This often comes up in the United States in discussions about the Civil War as well. Its not to say that atrocities never occured, but that there is an element that tries to minimize the attrocities of their side by making inaccurate accusations of attrocities against the otherside.

There was no such thing as precision bombing back in World War II. On average it took over 2,000 sorties to hit a single target. It is not surprising in light of that, that entire cities were destroyed.

I think the bombing helped end the war earlier which ultimately saved more lives. I think Truman made the right decision to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan as that action obviously saved millions of lives by ending the war.

 

[Klaus]

Sting:

I know that there were no laser-guided smart bombs in WWII. But the bombing of city centers instead of industry districts wasn't coincidence and several people of the allied forces acnowledged that.
There is a difference between bombing the Ruhrgebiet and bombing Dresden or Darmstadt.

And the people i was thinking about would tell you in the same sentence where they condemn the bombing of German civilists that the 3rd reich did the same to english people before.
I'm pretty sure they don't ignore the facts.
Several relatives of mine were described as "not worthy to live" by 3rd reich laws, so, be asured i have no interest in glorifying ANYTHING there.

But besides the crimes which have bin done by the loosers i don't see any reason to ignore crimes which have bin done by the winners. If we would do that we would feed exactly the people you mention above who like to minimize the things they did by pointing out warcrimes which have bin done but are silenced by the allied forces of WWII.

from BBC:

Using incendiary bombs, the allied planes targeted cities such as Cologne in 'thousand bomber' raids. In February 1945, the obliteration of the historic city of Dresden from the air became one of the most controversial episodes of the allied war effort. The raid was supported by Churchill, but the British prime minister had second thoughts afterwards, and a few weeks later, the Allies halted area bombing.

Harris commanded respect from his subordinates and enormous loyalty from his crews. But the debate about the morality - and indeed efficacy - of the bombing raids was already under way in the closing stages of the war, and to Harris' disappointment, his request for a special campaign medal for the Bomber Command was refused.

And again BBC

In December 1943, he declared that his bomber force could bring about the collapse of Germany by April 1944. Yet Harris's high hopes proved unfounded. By the end of March, German morale was nowhere near breaking point, and Hitler's war machine was far from crippled. German armament production continued to rise until mid 1944.

The failure of the British bombing offensive in the winter of 1943/44 was all the more disappointing for Bomber Command, because by this time their American allies were beginning to make an impact.

The US Army Air Force had joined the strategic bombing campaign in the summer of 1942. They had come committed to 'precision' bombing in daylight. However, their bombers proved easy prey for the German day fighters. Heavy losses convinced the Americans that they needed long-range escort fighters to protect their bombers. These fighters lured the Luftwaffe into dogfights, and by the spring of 1944 they were gaining air superiority.

It was not, as Harris had expected, the destruction of German cities that proved decisive for the Allies in 1944 - it was the superiority of the RAF over the Luftwaffe in the air. It enabled the bomber forces to neutralise strategic and tactical targets in France, which was crucial for the success of the D-Day landings and the subsequent advance of Allied ground forces.

Or.. from http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/
note: i have no clue if this site is reliable, i just found their homepage with google's help

Rostock was home to a Heinkel factory, and could therefore be described as a legitimate target. But it is worth noting that of the 161 aircraft dispatched on April 23/24, only 18 were sent against Heinkel: the rest were directed to bomb the city itself.

Of course i'm glad that the allied forces helped the german people to get rid of that dictator (who survived many "terror"-attacks from germans).
But this dosn't turn me into a person who justifies everything the allied forces did. But i'm still thankful for every honest soldier who was willing to risk his life (and many had to pay for it with their lifes) for liberating Europe.

So one thing where wo don't agree might be that one:
Is it legitime to kill foreign civilists to save lifes of your soldiers?

 

[STING2]

Its legitamite to use what ever force that can bring the conflict to an end as quickly as possible. That is what ultimately will save the most lives. I don't doubt there are people out there who accuse the United States of War Crimes as I have said before. Real precision bombing was never possible during World War II. Many US aircraft and bombers were shot down over this cities that supposedly had no troops and had no ability to support the German war effort.

 

[Klaus]

STING2
There was a huge difference between the US Air Force and the RAF, obviousely the tactics of the US Air Force wasn't only more humane but also more effective than the British tactics.
So, as far as i know, it's mainly the RAF (especcially "Bomber" Harris) who were accused of war crimes

Is it legitime to kill foreign civilists to save lifes of your soldiers?

I don't think so - why? Because it's the free choice of someone if he wants to join the army (well at least in many countries) but it's not fair to attack someone just because his house is at the wrong place of the world, mostly these people don't even have a weapon to defend themself against such an attack.

 

[STING2]

STING2
There was a huge difference between the US Air Force and the RAF, obviousely the tactics of the US Air Force wasn't only more humane but also more effective than the British tactics.
So, as far as i know, it's mainly the RAF (especcially "Bomber" Harris) who were accused of war crimes



I don't think so - why? Because it's the free choice of someone if he wants to join the army (well at least in many countries) but it's not fair to attack someone just because his house is at the wrong place of the world, mostly these people don't even have a weapon to defend themself against such an attack.

It is legitamite to risk the lives of foreign civilians in order to save a greater number of foreign civilians as well as your soldiers by ending a conflict earlier or suddenly. The actions that end the war at the earliest time, are the actions that ultimately save the most lives regardless if they are military or civilian on either side.

 

[Klaus]

STING2
So in the case of "Bomber Harris" most historicans agree that it didn't shorten the war because it didn't weaken the morale of the germans (it's likely that the oposite hapened, that more people rallied behind their leaders because of the threat).

So if these historicans are right it would not have bin legitime?