if you would know a little about story you would shut the fuck up. Japan had submarine aircraft carier wich could strke anywhere anytime with toxic weapons but the people of japan refused to use such a barbaric weapon unlike the US
That still doesn't turn the death of a quarter million non-combatants to 'not shit', that was my point. Of course the japanese committed horrible crimes too, but no matter how you look at it, 250 000 is quite a lot of people.
In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalls General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, said: "'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"
No matter how the comparison may lie, describing the death of 150,000 to 250,000 people, mostly civilians to boot, and the obliteration of two cities, with radiation effects lasting up until this very day as "wasn't shit" shows you're neither respectful nor all that rational, in my opinion. Also, are you truly naive enough to believe war crimes weren't being committed by all sides involved?
