Largest country/empire

[Caid Ivik]

Sorry, I ment "compare".

Our philosophy is most advanced, improved by most people. I can't say it about any other civilisation. They might be civilised, but poorly in comparation to us. Our culture is most powerful. Only one, which found functional form of assimilation.

[BRAVO]

i think the nuke was a selfish thing to do by the americans

[Anathema]

You mean nuking Japan? It was only logical. They had to put the lives of their own soldiers above those of the enemy, obviously.

[BRAVO]

they were about to give up and the had to go kill over 50 000 people

[Acriku]

The Japanese were not about to give up. Quite the contrary in fact.

[Caid Ivik]

Actually, bombardments of Dresden or Tokyo were more bloody. Horror of nuke was caused by neverending radiation and power of one lone bomb.

[Anathema]

You know, German generals who bombarded London or Rotterdam were executed after the war- but Allied generals who bombarded Dresden and Hamburg got medals.

I'm not defending the Germans, but both sides commited crimes.

[Edric O]

History is written by the winners.

[Acriku]

Oh but the loser's history is so much more interesting...

[BRAVO]

winner= people who are right only the ones who survived

[alejandro]

I think the Spanish Empire in the XVI century.

[Dunenewt]

You know, German generals who bombarded London or Rotterdam were executed after the war- but Allied generals who bombarded Dresden and Hamburg got medals.

I'm not defending the Germans, but both sides commited crimes.

Um..do you know what yoare saying! You are saying those generals who fought for a just cause should be killed?!? We liberated you anyway

[Edric O]

Simply because they fought for a just cause, that doesn't give them an excuse to do anything they please. The end does not justify the means.

But this is only a minor point.

[Anathema]

Yeah, pretty much what Edric says. Besides, you can't blame somebody for fighting for his country- they did not kill the civilians who supported Hitler, so why kill his generals?

[Edric O]

Because Hitler's generals were nazi fanatics, cold blooded killers. They ordered countless slaughters of thousands of innocent civilians.

One death is not punishment enough for a nazi.

[Anathema]

Then you'd have to kill all nazis. Including civilian supporters. And you'd have to kill all neo nazis that exist today, not only those who actually put the ideology into practice.

Besides, plenty of Americans were racists in those days too.

[Edric O]

50 million people were killed by the nazis, Earthnuker, 50 million... There is no horror greater than that.

Imagine your closest, dearest loved one dying 50 million times, in inhumane agony. That is the scope of the slaughter. If I were a Jew (6 million dead, most in Death Camps), or a Russian (30 million dead), and I met a nazi, I would probably want to kill him with my bare hands.

I normaly abhore revenge and violence, but 50 million voices cry out for justice.

[Anathema]

I agree with that, but if the german generals had to die (wich I think they should), how could the allies justify bombarding civilians as well?

[Edric O]

Wars have casualties. The allies fought fire with fire. Had they not bombed civilians as well, we would all be wearing swastikas now.

World War 2 was a total war. We could not afford to lose. A nazi victory would have meant the beginning of an era of absolute evil.

[Anathema]

I suppose. I originally wanted to point out that bombing German civilians got you medals and bombing Allied civilians is a crime was rather...awkward.

Do you believe the death penalty is justifyable?

[Edric O]

Awkward? Maybe in your everyday war, yes. But WW2 was not your everyday war. It was clear-cut good vs evil. And not just any evil, but the greatest evil in the history of mankind.

The death penalty is NOT justifiable for any crime other than genocide.

[Anathema]

I think the death penalty is justifyable for murder out of free will.

Law is based on the phrase "That what you don't want another to do to you, you do not do against another"

You take away the persons life- no penalty will ever come close to justice save killing him too. If you give him jail time, he only loses a few years of his life.

[Edric O]

An eye for an eye and the whole world will go blind...

Revenge is not the answer. But when one man is responsible for the deaths of thousands, then revenge is justifiable. Other than that, we should NEVER take away a person's life. We should not lower ourselves to his level.

[Acriku]

The generals were only convicted was because they held the highest power and issued the orders, the soldiers just followed that order. They may not have agreed with it, but it was an order. And whoever wins always gets to convict the other of the warcrimes, and the winner always gets to get all the medals. That's the way it goes, or atleast the way it was. Right now everybody is becoming politically correct so much it's hurting humanity.

Edric, it becomes a political issue rather than a moral issue when considering the death sentence - why spend millions on people who are going to die anyway, rotting in the prison, if you can just humanely "put them to sleep" for a very low cost?

[Anathema]

Our society will only function if we respect another ones rights. If you kill someone out of free will, that means you don't respect that persons rights. If the victim isn't allowed to live, then neither should we let the killer live.

Note: when I say out of free will, that does not include self defense, or a situation in where a person sees himself forced to commit a murder.