I think we need to make a distinction between some things that were, rightly or wrongly, part of a military strategy, and ad hoc looting and pillaging which smacks of revenge.
I pointed out that you can't really compare them; I also pointed out that there was far more at work in Japan than mere bombings?
Why would I argue that? It isn't what happened, which is what I've confined my comments to.
There weren't qualifiers then, nor have there been since. I'm surprised you're missing that. I just went back and reread - for the third time now - what I wrote. I don't see any "qualifiers." Maybe you should explain some more.
Dig myself in deeper how? I've written exactly what took place; exactly what you'll find in any reliable record you'll look at; exactly what just about every credible commentator for the last 65 years has written - the surrender of Japan (and Germany, but it seems we've moved out of Europe) was somewhat more complex than "they a-bombed us into submission." Although that's the popular notion, it ain't what happened.
That sounds eerily similar to the definition of terrorism that we had in another thread.
That sounds eerily similar to the definition of terrorism that we had in another thread.
But weren't we just talking in this thread about bombing towns and villages? It seems as if the distinction is at least debatable, though probably in the SZ; not here.
I'll guarantee you that homosexual submariners are not tolerated. They are dealt with quickly by removing those individuals from the fleet, immediately.
As a surface skimmer in the 70's we dealt with it in a less formal way. You better know how to swim.
I'll guarantee you that homosexual submariners are not tolerated. They are dealt with quickly by removing those individuals from the fleet, immediately.
As a surface skimmer in the 70's we dealt with it in a less formal way. You better know how to swim.
I'll guarantee you that homosexual submariners are not tolerated. They are dealt with quickly by removing those individuals from the fleet, immediately.
As a surface skimmer in the 70's we dealt with it in a less formal way. You better know how to swim.
............... I'm kidding!
No need to worry, I'm enlightened now.
You can swin can't you?
Back then the Navy did not tolerate homosexuals and they were dealt with harshly and taken off the ship within hours if someone came out of the closet. It's just the way it was. Things have come a long way I know, but this was 40 years ago also. What can I say?
Oh, puleez.
Point is, guys like to use "brute strength" as an argument to keep women out of combat positions. But I think women in law enforcement have shown for many years that using your brain and figuring out your way around a problem is just as valuable, if not more so, than bullying your way through using all muscle. Would I like to have as much upper body strength as guys do? Sure, but adrenaline is an amazing thing, and women have moved people and things with it during high stress situations where men would not have thought they could. The argument is way past old. It's about time the military is doing away with artificial barriers.
And before someone points out that some hand-to-hand type combat positions are much more physically demanding on a regular basis that law enforcement, I don't dispute that may be true, but come on... on a submarine? Good grief.
I've been on a number of submarines that were opened up for tours and think that being small would be an advantage. I am more comfortable in cramped places than a big guy (or woman) might be, especially in something like a small bunk. That said, serving on a submarine is about the last thing I would choose to do whether I was male of female but that doesn't mean others shouldn't be prevented from trying.
I have a similar campaign called 'children should be seen and not had"
