In article <3k5qa0Fsign6U1@individual.net>, "Jim F." <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

"Emmi H." <hugnkiss98122MYBLOUSE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hugnkiss98122MYBLOUSE-0558FB.06301419072005@pita.alt.net...

In article <3k407kFs35feU1@individual.net>, "Jim F." <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

Wartime specific manufacturing facilities were then, as they have
always been, fair game insofar as their designation as legitimate
targets of war.

Of course, but how does one draw a distinction between "wartime
specific manufacturing facilities" which have always been fair game
and non-wartime manufacturing?

Good, you're finally beginning to see my earlier point.

Placing their wartime manufacturing facilities in the homes of
civilians in an effort to protect their supply line was about as evil
as
evil gets, Jim.

Well, I don't know about that. If the United States' manufacturing
infrastucture had suffered similar kinds of devastating bombings,
I am sure that FDR or Truman would have had no qualms about
resorting to making use of household manufacturing. Would that
have made civilian housing in the US legitimate targets for air
attacks by the Germans or Japanese, if they had had planes
that could reach the US?

For the love of God, are you really that ignorant of the subject matter
being discussed?

Japan had no heavy industry to speak of in the '30's and '40's.

Virtually all of Japan's supply of wartime material during that era
came from the civilian population -- Comparing a heavily industrialised
US supply line of that era with the Japanese supply line of that era is
idiotic.

'Rosie the Riveter's' hearth and home, stateside, would have been very
much a legitimate target if she were assembling B-17's or B-29's in her
kitchen or living room.

In fact, as WW II proceeded,
the net was drawn increasingly wide, so that whole cities, including
their civilian populations became "military" targets. And that as I
suggested before opened the door to the legitimation of terrorism
against civilians.

You might have a point if the terrorists were uniformed soldiers from a
country acting under a formal declaration of war.

By that line of reasoning, the Germans were quite correct to have
treated the French resistance fighters and other partisan fighters
and little more than terrorists and bandits, since these people
were generally not uniformed soldiers, and the Germans did not
recognize them as fighting for any sort of a legitimate government.

The majority of French resistance fighters of that era took their
orders, after a fashion, from the officially recognised 'French
Government in Exile' led by Charles de Gaulle -- So no, your analogy is
fatally flawed from the outset.

And as far as the issue of formal declararions of war are concerned,
the last time the US fought a war, with one was back in WW II.
The Vietnam War, was notable for not having been formally declared.
The Gulf of Tongkin Resolution does not count as one. And we have
managed to fight several wars since then, without formal declarations
of war. Does that mean that other countries have the right to treat
captured US service personnel as terrorists and bandits?

Somehow the phrase "uniformed soldiers from a country" must have sailed
right o'er your head, Jim.

Look, Jim, I entered this discussion to talk about the stupidity of
playing 'arm-chair general with the benefit of sixty years of hindsight'
not afforded those making the terrible decisions of that time.

Frankly, I'm appalled by your level of ignorance of the subject matter.

--
-
Emmi H. - Sacred cow tipping in Usenet since May '96