>No-one pretends that was about western superiority - just about killing them without losing our own soldiers.
Why? Are civillians targets to be killed in a war?
"Killing them without losing our own soldiers" is the worst thing I've ever heard --really can justify just about anything. In every other name, this is a war crime (as was Dresden).
End of story.
>And using an inflated number (IIRC the accepted historical count is about 230,000, including military) only harms your argument.
Yes, I can see how 300,000 vs 230,000 changes the core of the issue. /s
>"Killing them without losing our own soldiers" is the worst thing I've ever heard --really can justify just about anything. In every other name, this is a war crime (as was Dresden).
Suppose you're right. The point is still that it had nothing to do with western superiority or promoting the skeptical worldview.
Why? Are civillians targets to be killed in a war?
"Killing them without losing our own soldiers" is the worst thing I've ever heard --really can justify just about anything. In every other name, this is a war crime (as was Dresden).
End of story.
>And using an inflated number (IIRC the accepted historical count is about 230,000, including military) only harms your argument.
Yes, I can see how 300,000 vs 230,000 changes the core of the issue. /s