You're getting cuter by the post.
Pat Tillman and Mohammad Atta: Ethical Equals?
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
You're getting cuter by the post.
;-) ;-)
I bet you ART doesn't think so......
ART, seriously, don't you feel that we do understand what motivates terrorists? They are on a religious mission to conduct jihad against the infidels. That's why there is no point in trying to negotiate with them, it's pointless for us and insulting to them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now I'm confused....are you saying that it is equally pointless for the terrorists to negotiate with the United States because the U.S. will kill them anyway for not agreeing with them? That can't possibly be what you're saying...so before I respond I'd really like to fully understand what it is you're trying to convey... I mean I want to be fair and fully informed.....Thanks
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.
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.
ART, you know very well that that is no answer.
So answer my question, which school of 'secular ethics', as you put it, morally equates killing 'clearly' innocent civillians and 'legitimate' military targets?
And what do you think? How could you possibly miss that I asked you this? Come now, don't just sit there acting all morally superior, let us know your position.
Furthermore, even with Japan, a case could be made that given the all-encompassing nature of the conflict, in which entire countries' economies were ruled by the war effort, it could reasonably be established that an entire city's daily activities are a direct support to the country's forces and that vanquishing such a city could be reasonably expected to impact the enemy so greatly that defeat or surrender would be imminent, a decision to carry out such action may be thus legitimated.
This stands in stark contrast to 9.11, in which a state of all-encompassing war did not exist between the US and another nation, and even if a state of a limited, subversive 'war' was claimed, the same state of all-out effort to win such a war wasn't present and thus it could not be argued that an attack solely on New York could in any way be expected to cause a US defeat or 'surrender'.
As I said, I don't want to get sidetracked. If you like, assume that Japan was 'wrong'. Where does that leave you with 9.11 and Tillman?
So answer my question, which school of 'secular ethics', as you put it, morally equates killing 'clearly' innocent civillians and 'legitimate' military targets?
And what do you think? How could you possibly miss that I asked you this? Come now, don't just sit there acting all morally superior, let us know your position.
Furthermore, even with Japan, a case could be made that given the all-encompassing nature of the conflict, in which entire countries' economies were ruled by the war effort, it could reasonably be established that an entire city's daily activities are a direct support to the country's forces and that vanquishing such a city could be reasonably expected to impact the enemy so greatly that defeat or surrender would be imminent, a decision to carry out such action may be thus legitimated.
This stands in stark contrast to 9.11, in which a state of all-encompassing war did not exist between the US and another nation, and even if a state of a limited, subversive 'war' was claimed, the same state of all-out effort to win such a war wasn't present and thus it could not be argued that an attack solely on New York could in any way be expected to cause a US defeat or 'surrender'.
As I said, I don't want to get sidetracked. If you like, assume that Japan was 'wrong'. Where does that leave you with 9.11 and Tillman?
You are confused.
Just exactly what isn't clear?
We went into Iraq with no attempt to negotiate, it was surrender or die.
This decision to act was not an action approved by the body that generated the terms of initial agreement with Saddam. The USA was never individually sanctioned to wage war and remove Saddam.
It was not a UN force acting to bring Saddam in line, it was a USA force with a small percentage of participants and funding relative to these "coalition" other countries that supported the USA.
Why should Saddam have listened to a few rogue parties who wanted to take action, when the governing council of the UN did not itself approve of the action?
Detach for a moment, put down the flag, and look at the situation objectively.
We acted the way we did because we knew no one had the power to stop us. The Soviets were not about to stop us, but had this happened 30 years ago, we would have had to take them into account if they had protested strongly.
It was our might that made us right, not an ethical argument nor position.
This lack of balance of power in the world is a dangerous thing, and history has shown time and time again what happens when a super power acts with impunity.
Just exactly what isn't clear?
We went into Iraq with no attempt to negotiate, it was surrender or die.
This decision to act was not an action approved by the body that generated the terms of initial agreement with Saddam. The USA was never individually sanctioned to wage war and remove Saddam.
It was not a UN force acting to bring Saddam in line, it was a USA force with a small percentage of participants and funding relative to these "coalition" other countries that supported the USA.
Why should Saddam have listened to a few rogue parties who wanted to take action, when the governing council of the UN did not itself approve of the action?
Detach for a moment, put down the flag, and look at the situation objectively.
We acted the way we did because we knew no one had the power to stop us. The Soviets were not about to stop us, but had this happened 30 years ago, we would have had to take them into account if they had protested strongly.
It was our might that made us right, not an ethical argument nor position.
This lack of balance of power in the world is a dangerous thing, and history has shown time and time again what happens when a super power acts with impunity.
Lol. You sound like someone that just woke up to the fact that proving moral positions is a nigh on impossible task. Well, umm, duh!.
And this from someone that not so long ago was arguing for moral absolutes. Dude, for someone so long-winded, you sure don't seem terribly well informed about that which you discuss.
And your desire for "absolute consistency of foreign policy" is about as a perfect example of left-wing liberal thinking as you can find; their major grievance, as always, is that something, be it socio-economic equality, gender issues, foreign policy, isn't absolutely perfect, and would the real world kindly step aside thank you.