So if little Adolph got the puppy he wanted for Christmas, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust? You are too silly.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pat Tillman and Mohammad Atta: Ethical Equals?
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
So if little Adolph got the puppy he wanted for Christmas, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust? You are too silly.
Mentally disturbed people should of course be locked up, away from the possibility to harm others.
In the case of Hitler, we blame him, but what was it about the people who followed him that made him powerful enough to control their though processes and guide them in the direction of evil actions?
Understanding the dynamics of how essentially good people who become followers can be so easily influenced by severely deranged individuals who twist and pervert, who preach violence and hate, is essential if there is going to be real change in the middle east.
It is during times of economic hardship and a sense of powerlessness of the masses that these types of leaders emerge, offering a simple black and white solution, a scapegoat, and a simplistic US versus Them plan.
No wonder Bush still maintains popularity, he is preaching fear to the masses during a time of economic hardship and a sense of powerlessness of the masses.
We can only hope that the people of this country will choose to think for themselves over the false sense of security offered by these deranged leaders.
In the case of Hitler, we blame him, but what was it about the people who followed him that made him powerful enough to control their though processes and guide them in the direction of evil actions?
Understanding the dynamics of how essentially good people who become followers can be so easily influenced by severely deranged individuals who twist and pervert, who preach violence and hate, is essential if there is going to be real change in the middle east.
It is during times of economic hardship and a sense of powerlessness of the masses that these types of leaders emerge, offering a simple black and white solution, a scapegoat, and a simplistic US versus Them plan.
No wonder Bush still maintains popularity, he is preaching fear to the masses during a time of economic hardship and a sense of powerlessness of the masses.
We can only hope that the people of this country will choose to think for themselves over the false sense of security offered by these deranged leaders.
Quote from Hello_Dollars:
So if little Adolph got the puppy he wanted for Christmas, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust? You are too silly.
Quote from I Missed Boat:
Funny how it took a SECOND nuke before Japan even surrendered. They murdered many, many thousands of American POWs, used Americans for their "scientific experiments," murdered, plundered and raped women in Korea and Manchuria, and of course attacked Pearl Harbor without declaring war. They had a military that used kamikaze pilots and, for that matter, soldiers. Now the latter methods were fair, but why should we lose 500,000 (or whatever the ridiculous number expected to be killed) more of our people to invade their mainland and force a surrender? In fact, more people were killed by conventional bombs in one night (Dresden), but that doesn't give politically correct self-righteous people (who might sing a different tune if they were more than likely to die invading Japan while seeing the atrocities they committed) as nice a picture to get all, well, self-righteous about. Truman did the right thing under the circumstances!
Am I the only one who noticed that ART's so-called "sources" were nuclear freeze movement whackos? I am deeply suspicious of this oral history that is nowhere documented. No doubt there is some truth to the observation that part of Truman's rationale was to give the Soviets a demonstration of our power, but given the extent to which they had infiltrated FDR's administration, that was hardly necessary.
The Japanese were extremely lucky that we didn't drop more nukes on them. ART and his nuclear free crowd feel sacrificing tens of thousands of soldiers would have been a small price to pay to maintain our nuclear virginity. I disagree, and so did Truman and the vast majority of Americans, then and now.
If the Japanese had won WW II, can anyone contemplate the horror they would have inflicted on us? Their actions in china and the Phillipines are probably only a small hint of what we would have suffered. To this day those of us whose ancestors survived would be living as slaves to the Emperor. I'm sure that doesn't bother ART and the rest of the blame America chorus, since he has the ethical training to understand their motivation, but everytime I think about it I wish Truman had dropped another half dozen nukes on those bastards.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I don't see the great ethical issue here that you do. I think there is also an obvious danger to becoming intoxicated with the moral superiority that infects those who see every dispute as an exercise in moral equivalency. It's harmless enough when confined to academia, but it's deadly when President has it. Give me Ronald Reaganover Jimmy Carter any day.
Actually an "exercise [sic] in moral equivalency" is quite the opposite than what you describe above. By definition, judging "equivalency" is to judge what is equal (while you refer to us as "intoxicated with the moral superiority"). Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, "engaging in "moral equivalency" is typically an "exercise" in which someone makes an argument that essentially equates nearly all acts and codes as equally moral.
WHAT IS THE SOURCE?? These numbers appear absurd. Some of these suggestions appear as revisionist history (many honest and clear thinking people who lived and fought during the time recall the reasons for dropping the atom bomb-to save US lives and end the war-very clearly). And the claim that Japan, who didn't even surrender after the first nuke and was still fighting viciously, and who was still killing and torturing American POWs, was about to surrender is hiiiiiiilarious!
Quote from ARogueTrader:
The school that concludes killing civilians will end a war sooner than not.
Truman visited this school before he dropped the bomb on non military targets.
In late July 1945, General Douglas MacArthur (Commander in Chief of all Allied Forces in the Pacific/Asiatic Theater) had received news that Japan was seeking a meeting with the Russians to draft plans for formal a surrender. MacArthur decided to cease his plan to continue with operations to invade Japan (Operations Olympia and Coronet) which were slated for early to mid 1946. In his mind Japan was completely decimated and had lost the ability to conduct war. Days later MacArthur was upset that the US government decided to drop atomic bombs on Japanese civilian targets at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (After the bombs had fallen the general was said to been shaken and despondent.)
Many Japanese today can remember that Japan was "almost completely flat" with no buildings standing in the major cities during 1944-post WW2. The war was escalating in the numbers of atrocities or the neglect of sympathy to civilians as targets for war. Feb 13-14th 1944, Dresden, Germany was fire bombed by Allied aircraft for no apparent reason. It was a non military target known for its medieval architecture and ceramics. Dresden was a civilian target yet over 60,000 civilians were killed and many more homeless.
Tokyo had been fire bombed March 9-10, 1945 and some 83,000 civilians burned to death and thousands homeless. US B29 bomber crews commented on the stench of burning bodies when they made low level passes over Tokyo. "Brigadier General Bonner Feller described the air raids as the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history"
There are quite a few people today who argue that dropping the atomic bombs saved lives?
The actual invasion for Japan (if there was one going to be held) was nearly 6-9 months away. Wasn't there enough time to finalize a formal surrender with the Allies and Japan? By May 7th 1945, Germany had formally surrendered.......
The surrender for Japan was going to come about soon. Emperor Hirohito actually stopped all Kamikaze missions and wished to make peace with the Allies through the Russians (May 1945). The conclusion that dropping the atomic bombs was in order to save lives was made after the war was over and was not the initial reason why the atomic bombs were dropped. The atom bombs were dropped to intimidate the Russians and let them know who had the real power in the world at that time. It became the start of the Cold War.
Stalin had spies in Los Alamos and had already had news of the bomb and had plans to build their own.
So was dropping the atomic bombs really neccesary to end WW2? If you examine the atomic bombs casualties you may not think so: On August 6th 1945, "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan near the (Shima Hospital). In Hiroshima alone there were some 150,000 deaths in the first 2-3 months mostly seniors, women, and children. Months later the total would be over (300,000 dead).
This included more than 10,000 Koreans and some 3000 or more Chinese who resided in Hiroshima or were conscripted by the Japanese military for labor. It is estimated some 30,000 Koreans would die in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. This number included small numbers of Indonesian, Taiwanese, Thai, and other students studying in Japan or who were trapped there for the duration of the war. Also an estimated 250 Allied POW's perished in the atom bombings.
On August 9th, 1945," Fat Man" was dropped on Nagasaki killing over 140,000 people.
There is some strong speculation that the numbers of deaths were much higher since all of the major cities were destroyed in Japan. Many civilians congregated to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for relief and shelter. Some Japanese sources claim nearly 1,000,000 deaths that occurred from radiation poisoning and fallout in the following 25 years after the bombs were dropped.
The escalation of this type of warfare had led up to a nuclear holocaust that took the lives of unarmed civilians mostly women and children. There were so few weapons in Japan that teenage girls were learning to fight with bamboo spears in case an Allied invasion would come. The horrors of the atom bombs was almost too frightening to be written about. No film could capture its horror and depth of suffering. Radiation sickness, cancers, and blindness. Thousands of people would carry the disfiguring burns and radiation scars for a lifetime. Thousands would die in the next fifty years from strange maladies.
There were several hundred Japanese Americans who died in the bombings. They were mostly Kibei's (American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were studying in Japan before the war broke out) Some 1000 or so returned to America after the war as American Hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors). Many Japanese American families lost relatives and friends in both bombing raids while still residing in US concentration camps. Many Nisei veterans serving in Europe and the Pacific Theaters were saddened after hearing the news that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated.
You wish we had dropped half a dozen nukes on them?
How utterly barbaric.
Oh, so the vast majority of Americans holding a belief makes the belief right?
Then slavery was right, denying women the vote was right, murdering Indians to take their land was right, etc., etc., etc.,.
Some people evolve, others remain right wing republican extremists.
How utterly barbaric.
Oh, so the vast majority of Americans holding a belief makes the belief right?
Then slavery was right, denying women the vote was right, murdering Indians to take their land was right, etc., etc., etc.,.
Some people evolve, others remain right wing republican extremists.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Am I the only one who noticed that ART's so-called "sources" were nuclear freeze movement whackos? I am deeply suspicious of this oral history that is nowhere documented. No doubt there is some truth to the observation that part of Truman's rationale was to give the Soviets a demonstration of our power, but given the extent to which they had infiltrated FDR's administration, that was hardly necessary.
The Japanese were extremely lucky that we didn't drop more nukes on them. ART and his nuclear free crowd feel sacrificing tens of thousands of soldiers would have been a small price to pay to maintain our nuclear virginity. I disagree, and so did Truman and the vast majority of Americans, then and now.
If the Japanese had won WW II, can anyone contemplate the horror they would have inflicted on us? Their actions in china and the Phillipines are probably only a small hint of what we would have suffered. To this day those of us whose ancestors survived would be living as slaves to the Emperor. I'm sure that doesn't bother ART and the rest of the blame America chorus, since he has the ethical training to understand their motivation, but everytime I think about it I wish Truman had dropped another half dozen nukes on those bastards.
Quote from ARogueTrader:
It is equally pointless to negotiate with anyone who will kill you if you don't agree with their position.
Christianity is well known throughout history for killing people who did not convert.
So, perhaps we are more evolved now?
If that is the case, why don't we consistently act like it?
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting an evil.
First the theoretical part. If someone MUST make a decision, and that decision is between evil and a lesser evil, than no, the person cannot be held responsible for supporting evil. Examples are not even hard to come by.
Secondly, tell me now where Christians kill those who don't convert. As you said, "perhaps we are more evolved." Implying that everyone is completely morally equivalent because Western states are not absolutely perfect is absurd. NO peoples are without mistakes in their history, and more importantly, no state is going to go without making some foreign policy mistake in the future (whether by the actions they take or the actions they don't take). Some of these mistakes are FAR WORSE and full of malice than others. More importantly, does a nation's foreign (or even domestic) policy mistake mean that that nation later shouldn't defend itself or fight religious fundamentalists who seek to kill everyone who does not accept their beliefs, overthrow all governments that don't practice their extreme practices, and oppress women and suppress basic liberties? Hardly!
Democrat, Republican or Texan
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You're carrying a Smith & Wesson revolver and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the pistol have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click click click...
Pretty self explanatory.
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You're carrying a Smith & Wesson revolver and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the pistol have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click click click...
Pretty self explanatory.
History is full of examples of Christians who killed those who did not convert.
We have evolved since those times, and in the same way I see no reason that the current Muslim leadership can't also evolve, given the followers enjoy the same level of economic prosperity on a mass scale that we do.
Yes, we are not perfect.
Then why does the Bush administration act as if they are? How many admissions of mistake, fault, error, stupidity, poor planning, evil actions have they admitted to?
Lesser evil is still evil.
Self defense is one thing if survival depends on it.
Iraq was not self defense, it was and is an example of offensive self serving foreign policy.
Why is Castro still in power, if our mission is to liberate the oppressed people of the world?
We have evolved since those times, and in the same way I see no reason that the current Muslim leadership can't also evolve, given the followers enjoy the same level of economic prosperity on a mass scale that we do.
Yes, we are not perfect.
Then why does the Bush administration act as if they are? How many admissions of mistake, fault, error, stupidity, poor planning, evil actions have they admitted to?
Lesser evil is still evil.
Self defense is one thing if survival depends on it.
Iraq was not self defense, it was and is an example of offensive self serving foreign policy.
Why is Castro still in power, if our mission is to liberate the oppressed people of the world?
Quote from I Missed Boat:
First the theoretical part. If someone MUST make a decision, and that decision is between evil and a lesser evil, than no, the person cannot be held responsible for supporting evil. Examples are not even hard to come by.
Secondly, tell me now where Christians kill those who don't convert. As you said, "perhaps we are more evolved." Implying that everyone is completely morally equivalent because Western states are not absolutely perfect is absurd. NO peoples are without mistakes in their history, and more importantly, no state is going to go without making some foreign policy mistake in the future (whether by the actions they take or the actions they don't take). Some of these mistakes are FAR WORSE and full of malice than others. More importantly, does a nation's foreign (or even domestic) policy mistake mean that that nation later shouldn't defend itself or fight religious fundamentalists who seek to kill everyone who does not accept their beliefs, overthrow all governments that don't practice their extreme practices, and oppress women and suppress basic liberties? Hardly!
Quote from ARogueTrader:
Were they both willing to sacrifice their life for their respective causes?
The issue becomes whose cause is right, and whose cause is wrong.
Then, by what standards do we determine what is right and wrong.
If I say "killing is wrong" then are we wrong to kill terrorists?
We justify what we do based not on ethics in this country, but on opportunity for profit and expansion of our ideology.
Were we in it for the "ethics" Castro would not be in power.
When I see absolute consistency of foreign policy, then we can talk ethics.
Until that time, I just see the business of war.
First of all, that is a ridiculous generalization. We are not saying killing is wrong. We are saying killing the innocent, particularly killing the innocent on purpose, is wrong!
Secondly, you are saying we are consistent because the US, given its resources as well as its interests, must pick and choose where it involves itself. We have gotten involved many times for humanitarian reasons in countries that had no strategic importance to us, but the fact is that nations, like people, often have to pick their battles. I hope you are just young, naive and ignorant, because if you haven't figured out that people (and for the same reason, states) must pick their battles, no matter how principled and active they are, then you are obviously someone who does not learn from experience (I won't mention what that is the definition of).
If there is a good argument against going into Iraq, it is that we didn't do a good job prioritizing, not that Sadaam wasn't a threat or that he wasn't one of the worst rulers in the world. But given the greater threats lurking, Iraq should not have been our first priority.
Let's also remember that Tillman died in, of all places, Afghanistan, fighting al Quada and al-queda aligned and extreme oppressors the Taliban. And he did this following their attack on the US, one that intentionally killed thousands of civilians (and sought to kill many thousands more). He did this after they killed a couple thousand natives in Kenya and Tanzania, in order to destroy our embassies and kill a few Americans. They planned more attacks, had many more attacks foiled, and weren't even willing to negotiate on turning bin Laden over. Now the US is helping to rebuild the country, has helped millions of women to gain freedom and get an education, and is working to create a stable democracy (with the blessing of the entire world, and the support of many nations, by the way). And you actually call this arrogant, you refer to this as failing to try to understand the terrorists point of view, and you describe this as morally equivalent? You are amazing!