"and that somehow, a country that could already reduce cities like Dresden, Schweinfurt and Tokyo to ashes (killing more people than both atom bombs combined) with man-made firestorms was somehow still "righteous""
I was wrong about apologizing - if you can't see the difference between Nazi/Japanese Despots and the US, you are hopeless.
And I am not going to suffer your "Iran" card foolishness gladly. The west bashing heritage of the middleast has its basis in the Kremlin.
And I am not going to suffer your
No, you were right to apologize, but are wrong in continuing to shoot the messenger.
"Morality" is not measured in terms of "our morality" (or anything we can twist to make it sound moral) being superior to "their morality". In terms of the destruction meted out by both Axis and Allies there were millions, caught in the middle and mostly innocent, that bore the brunt.
And yes, I do make a distinction between a "morality" that claims the bombing of unarmed civilians is a good thing because they happen to be "the enemy", and a "morality" that says those same people should be bombed because they're not members of the "master race" or do not follow the "bushido code". Murder of the innocent is still murder, despite the ultimate "good" achieved by it.
I'm sure there's many throughout the Middle East (which, by the way, it's hatred of the West is NOT a Kremlin plot; it is the result of an arrested, close-minded, and ultimatly failed culture. Islamic hatred of the West predates the Kremlin by centuries, my friend) who would have no problem excusing the nuking of Tel Aviv or Rome in the same terms of "morality" that you use. Since both visions of "morality" are based on ignorance and a flawed view of the world, how would an imaginary, disinterested party looking on decide which was more valid? The "morality" that engaged in mass murder as an expedient, or the "morality" that engaged in mass murder as a matter of poor politics disguised as religious faith?
I wish I could be as positive as you that EVERY LAST person killed at Dresden was a card-carrying Nazi by personal choice that would have followed Hitler to the grave, or that all those Japanese children vaporized at Nagasaki would have grown up to be Kamikazes, but I can't.
And stop with the Nazi/socialist/leftist/fascist remarks already. It's apparent you don't draw any distinction between them (and there is quite a number of distinctions), and that you use them so interchangably as to be ignorant of their true meanings. Educate yourself, please. It's getting embarrasing.