In the context of Japan's aggression against China, Korea and Southeast Asia leading to the deaths of 30 million people in World War Two...

In the context of the alternative of an invasion of Japan likely to lead to the deaths of 2 million Japanese...

Damn good thing they nuked those buggers too, they would have succeeded in killing an Uncle in a prison camp, he was damaged for life (physical and mental), Dad was in Sydney to ship out as a stretcher bearer and millions more would have died in close fighting. Just more bodies of unintended consequences of Leftie compassion. Aren't the recent thousand or so you lot have killed in the Indian Ocean enough to slake you vanity?

David G,

What is behind your hatred of America, what have they done to you?

Also, who is this “Yeh, Pete” you keep having a conversation with? Why do you find it necessary to have your dialogue through a third party? Is it the real name of another OLOer or is it “your invisible friend”?

Why did you quote me to “Hey, Pete” then demonstrate that you did not actually read the quote yourself? Is this another case of "feeling" what was written and not what was written? Can you explain what your response actually means because it seems to have no relevance to what I wrote?

Look I know it’s hard to explain yourself, especially to fools but I still don’t understand what you said

"Look I know it’s hard to explain yourself, especially to fools but I still don’t understand what you said," says Spindoc.

And you never will!

P.S. But you are not alone so don't feel too bad.

Thanks for this interest in my article, though I venture that some of the later comments are a bit off track.
I just want to say something about the earlier comments from Curmudgeon and Kenny. I said it was paradoxical that commemoration of earlier more bloody wars could soften us and our children up for future more efficient and 'cleaner' wars. But I didn't use the word 'glorification' of war.
I would prefer to call it the relentless, ubiquitous, commemoration of aspects of war (the more heroic, sentimental bits, sanitised to remove the blood and guts). This combines with the attraction of an arms length weapon that doesn't require direct exposure of our blokes to danger. Easy war and clean weapon makes it easier to fight wars in the future.
Indirectly, though, there are great dangers from a drones arms race and from terrorists taking revenge on drone operators where they live (the Las Vegas/Creech base scenario mentioned in the article could work just as well for Alice Springs/Pine Gap).
All of this is, of course, without confronting the essential selfishness of the 'less cost/least collateral damage/reduced risk to our guys in the field' argument put by both Curmudgeon and Kenny. What about the other human beings involved? Try living in the Af-Pak borderlands for a month or two, where the CIA has treated all adult males as terrorists (check out the discussion of the kill statistics in Medea Benjamin's book Drone Warfare and on the site of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism) and fair game and have perfected the technique of the 'double tap' (drone strike, wait half an hour, another drone strike to take out the people milling around attempting to help).
I'd rather be a 'grunt in the field', Kenny, than live under that sort of terror. And to describe drone warfare as not being 'involved in wars' is rather stretching a point, Curmudgeon.

LOL, I call Bull that you would rather be a grunt. Decent, hard people who make the world safe for fools know statements such as this are mere "voguing".