There's plenty of *misinformation and biased material online, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the ethics of war. Maybe instead of assuming that the other side is just stupid and wrong, you should actually consider the faults and merits of their points.

Yes and no, depending on what you're curating.

Got a long time buddy who lives in Hawaii. This is the view from his back yard.

Crazy!

https://scontent.fhhr1-2.fna.fbcdn.n...eb&oe=5B7D1650

http://www.monkeetime.com/wp-content...a-at-Night.jpg

The famine and suffering endured by the North Korean people is blood on America’s hands.

The bedrock of your support I imagine, neoliberal pig dog.

Subsequent famines killed maybe 2 million more and graphics like their lack of electricity implies it’s their own fault for being isolationist instead of understanding how history has backed them in a corner.

Perhaps there’s no point in playing what ifs but nukes were discussed.

^ Thanks for your comment about the effectiveness of gun laws, Maajo. It's good to see you posting again!

If I might clarify a small point, I wouldn't take the expression "gun laws" to mean that "it's illegal to buy, sell or consume." In Britain, the gun laws mean that it's very difficult to own a gun: you are subject to background checks and can only apply for a gun for purposes like hunting. If you are allowed a gun you are registered in a national database and required to keep the gun in a locked cabinet except when you, the licenseholder, are using it. There's no passing the gun around to your unbalanced children as seems to happen in American families. Also, you are unlikely to be permitted a gun in a city, and self-defense isn't considered a valid reason. But if you comply with all the above, you're good to go - and happy hunting!

__________________________________________________ __________

^ I suspect that "war criminal" was a term that came into being at the Nurenburg trials when various people were found guilty of "crimes against humanity." The Western Allies had been deeply shocked by what they found in the concentration camps and felt it was necessary to make a moral distinction between regular soldiering and what the soldiers implementing the Final Solution were doing.

According to your suggestion, there's no moral difference between the Allied soldiers who liberated the Jews from Dachau, and the Nazi soldiers who put them there. As OccultHawk says that a picture is worth a thousand words, I thought I'd find some photos:-


__________________________________________________ __________
^ I think it's accepted now that MacArthur over-reached himself and provoked the Chinese response. Yeah, in retrospect, he should've stopped at the 38th parallel, but that doesn't detract from what Chula's dad did, and as Neapolitan has convincingly demonstrated, there are 30 million South Koreans who are glad that Chula's dad made so much effort on their behalf.

^ That's a great pic, which seems to be half photo and half watercolour. I hope you friend stays safe.

There really is a lot less difference between the two than you would think. I think that if German and American soldiers swapped sides and kept the same leaders, there would have been the same outcome.

I meant what I said.

True, and that's the thing is that it's so easy to own a gun in America and there are just so many of them here that you're virtually guaranteed to be able to access one. I saw a statistic that said there are 102 guns per 100 citizens in the United States, and the next closest nation to us in that stat was Serbia or Slovenia at 55. Countries like Germany and Canada have about 30-35, and they see significantly reduced gun violence numbers and I think that's what we should aim for.