[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Dietger

There is not a single case in history, in all of it, in which ppl - civilians, as they are called here, where NOT an utterly important! - startegic and tactical - target(s).

You win, by killing as much as possible of them, preferably in the shortest time possible - keeping the $ost low.

There is not a single army in history, in all of it, which haddnt done so.

You're saying that ALL wars have been won by killing as many civilians as possible? Obviously that's incorrect.

it doesent make any sense to destingush between German pilots or British, US, Russian etc pilots, cos all of them killed civilians;

Well all sides killed civilians, but not all pilots did. And I think there are reasons to distinguish between aggressors and defenders in different conflicts.

Cos you cant kill for peace, you just keep it!
And killing is bad, periot.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree again. Shooting at a madman that's wandering through the streets killing civilians is not a bad thing to do. And there can be occasions when peace will be reached more quickly by killing.

And although its a tragedy, no couch potato has the right to point the finger - some 60 years later

I think I probably agree with your underlying point that it's all too easy for us to judge when we really have no idea about a lot of these things, and it's unfair to judge a lot of it from our armchairs - but we do have the right to judge, that's the point about freedom.

The right question should be : WHAT WOULD HAVE YOU! DONE???

That's just as hard to answer - again all to easy to swagger and say what we'd have done, but until we're put in that position we can't always be sure.

There is no excuse for shooting pilots on chutes. Bombing cities. Strafing ppl.

As I've written enough in the other thread, I disagree. And fortunately, so did the allied commanders.

Its ridiculous, all history books, writen by the winner long after the war(s) are full of self-righteousness, proclaiming, once again!, how they served peace by killing all the other(bad) ppl.

I agree that history is generally distorted by those that have won - but in recent wars around the world, the losers are often equally able to write history books on the subject. If talking about WWII, the Germans are totally free to write history books on it.

Wouldnt you think, that by now, after all this thousends of years - killing, all "bad" should be dead once and for all???

There's one born every minute.

Originally Posted by Dietger

I beg to differ!

As a human being, I believe peace and freedom are free!
And by their very nature easy to keep!

If someone wants to make you "pay" for it, they lie.

Lol, you think Peace is easy to keep? There's never been peace in the world, it can't be that easy. The saying that freedom isn't free doesn't mean that you should have to pay for it, it just means that it's not easy to keep freedom and it does cost you. So when the Polish were free before WWII, and Germany invaded, were the Poles supposed to say 'freedom is free, you lie, please leave'? Obviously they wanted freedom, and to get it they'd have to pay in the form of a war.

Being attacked or helping a poor soul is as well your right. Notwehr-Selfdefense!
...
If you find yourself taking other mens live, somewhere far from home - somthing is going utterly wrong. And (!) your probably be infact the "bad" guy, the attacker - NOT the defender.

There are plenty of wars where I agree with you there, but it is also possible that the poor soul that you're helping is a long way from home. For example, you agree it was right of the Americans to help in Europe in WWII I take it?

In regards of todays "asymetrical war(s)": there is no defense against terror!

- other then(real heartfelt) dialog.

Again, its a thin line ....

Terrorism is certainly not easy to defend against, but are there any examples in history where 'real heartfelt dialog' has worked against terror?