# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified

## enhanced_deficit

Are there times when dropping WMDs on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified?

This news today prompted me to think up above Q.

*Japan Marks 68th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing*  		 	 		By AP / Shizuo Kambayashi 
Aug. 05, 2013


 




Shizuo Kambayashi / APJapanese  Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, third from left, accompanied by Hiroshima  Peace Memorial Museum Director Kenji Shiga, left, looks at a diorama of  Hiroshima city after the Aug. 6, 1945 atomic bombing, at Hiroshima Peace  Memorial Museum in Hiroshima, western Japan, Aug. 6, 2013




 	  				 		(HIROSHIMA, Japan)  Japan marked the 68th anniversary Tuesday of  the atomic bombing of Hiroshima with a somber ceremony to honor the dead  and pledges to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons.
*Some 50,000 people stood for a minute of silence in Hiroshimas peace  park near the epicenter of the early morning blast on Aug. 6, 1945,  that killed up to 140,000 people.* The bombing of Nagasaki three days  later killed tens of thousands more, prompting Japans surrender to the  World War II Allies.

 Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, among many dignitaries attending the  event, said that as the sole country to face nuclear attack, Japan has  the duty to seek to wipe out nuclear weapons.

 The anniversary comes as Japan is torn over restarting nuclear power plants shut down since the massive 


Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/08/05/japan-marks-68th-anniversary-of-hiroshima-bombing

----------


## BuddyRey

It's better for a hundred bad guys to go free than for one innocent person to be killed needlessly, IMO.

----------


## pcosmar

Voted no.

But there are many who attempt to justify it.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Are there times when dropping WMDs on cities with *civilian* populated buildings is justified?


Are you defending yourself against aggression? Are the people who are for some reason labeled "civilians" responsible for the aggression? Did the "civilians" elect aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" voluntarily act as informants in support of the aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" provide financial support to the aggressive leaders? Do they pay taxes? If the answers are "yes", then what makes the "civilians" "innocent"? Would dropping the WMD's deter future aggression?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

bdtf, interesting complicated Qs and reserving the right to get back with more detailed answer but for now I would say that there are bound to be many many innocent people in the civilian populated buildings of a city. To make it simple, children don't pay taxes or enable a regime .. even though many adults would fall in same category too, even if your implied argument is accepted on face value for the sake of an argument.

----------


## eduardo89

No. The attacking of civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc were some of the worst war crimes in all of human history.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> bdtf, interesting complicated Qs and reserving the right to get back with more detailed answer but for now I would say that there are bound to be many many innocent people in the civilian populated buildings of a city. To make it simple, children don't pay taxes or enable a regime .. even though many adults would fall in same category too even if your implied argument is accepted on face value for the sake of an argument.


I don't want to be offensive, but I am trying to raise every angle to your question, for the sake of interesting discussion. For the sake of extreme example, what if you're facing a super-villain who is literally seconds away from launching a global nuclear attack that will extinguish all life on the planet, and the villain has fashioned himself armor made out of living children; is the only justifiable option to stand back and watch him launch the attack?

----------


## eduardo89

The use of weapons of mass destruction on populated areas is always immoral. They indiscriminately kill, regardless of whether someone is a lawful combatant or a civilian.  There is no way to mitigate collateral damage, which must be done in any military offensive. If you believe in just war theory then you must take into account the effect of your actions on innocents.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> No. The attacking of civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc were some of the worst war crimes in all of human history.


Where does the blame lie? Is it all on the individual who pulled the trigger to drop the bomb?

----------


## Cabal

Deliberately and intentionally killing innocent human life is murder. Deliberately and intentionally killing innocent human life en masse is mass murder. Dropping a WMD on a civilian population is both deliberate and intentional.

The mere thought of so many lives being snuffed out in an instant, all at once, is absolutely heartbreaking.

----------


## eduardo89

> Where does the blame lie? Is it all on the individual who pulled the trigger to drop the bomb?


The blame rests on those who ordered the attacks, but also on those who followed the orders.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

No, but the apparent justification comes from those that know better instilling fear into their population that is greater than the fear of going to battle, or the patriotic emotion instilled through the propaganda is such that they feel a great euphoria to be the servant to the same.

----------


## CPUd

Not to forget the massive bombing campaigns in the months prior to the U.S. dropping the atomic bombs.

"The table below notes the effect of conventional bombing campaigns on Japanese cities:



City Name
% Area Destroyed

Yokohama
58.0

Tokyo
51.0

Toyama
99.0

Nagoya
40.0

Osaka
35.1

Nishinomiya
11.9

Shimonoseki
37.6

Kure
41.9

Kobe
55.7

Omuta
35.8

Wakayama
50.0

Kawasaki
36.2

Okayama
68.9

Yawata
21.2

Kagoshima
63.4

Amagasaki
18.9

Sasebo
41.4

Moji
23.3

Miyakonojo
26.5

Nobeoka
25.2

Miyazaki
26.1

Ube
20.7

Saga
44.2

Imabari
63.9

Matsuyama
64.0

Fukui
86.0

Tokushima
85.2

Sakai
48.2

Hachioji
65.0

Kumamoto
31.2

Isesaki
56.7

Takamatsu
67.5

Akashi
50.2

Fukuyama
80.9

Aomori
30.0

Okazaki
32.2

Oita
28.2

Hiratsuka
48.4

Tokuyama
48.3

Yokkaichi
33.6

Ujiyamada
41.3

Ogaki
39.5

Gifu
63.6

Shizuoka
66.1

Himeji
49.4

Fukuoka
24.1

Kochi
55.2

Shimizu
42.0

Omura
33.1

Chiba
41.0

Ichinomiya
56.3

Nara
69.3

Tsu
69.3

Kuwana
75.0

Toyohashi
61.9

Numazu
42.3

Choshi
44.2

Kofu
78.6

Utsunomiya
43.7

Mito
68.9

Sendai
21.9

Tsuruga
65.1

Nagaoka
64.9

Hitachi
72.0

Kumagaya
55.1

Hamamatsu
60.3

Maebashi
64.2



The attack on these major cities caused as many as 500,000 Japanese deaths, while displacing as many as 5,000,000."

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217

----------


## eduardo89

CPUd, I've been to town in Germany that are as small as 5000 inhabitants that were obliterated during the war. What possible moral justification is there to carpet bomb rural villages?

----------


## CPUd

> CPUd, I've been to town in Germany that are as small as 5000 inhabitants that were obliterated during the war. What possible moral justification is there to carpet bomb rural villages?


I'm not sure there is one.


This would have been the guy to ask:

----------


## krugminator

It's likely to be abused, but the answer is a very easy yes.  If a foreign government attacks the United States, then any force necessary to eliminate the threat is appropriate. 

In the case of Japan they had the option to surrender. There was no major active movement to overthrow the government, so the Japanese adults were not innocent. The Japanese were on the side of Hitler and they committed an act of aggression against the United States.

----------


## eduardo89

> It's likely to be abused, but the answer is a very easy yes.  If a foreign government attacks the United States, then any force necessary to eliminate the threat is appropriate. 
> 
> In the case of Japan they had the option to surrender. There was no major active movement to overthrow the government, so the Japanese adults were not innocent. The Japanese were on the side of Hitler and they committed an act of aggression against the United States.


What act of aggression did German civilians in Dresden commit against the US? What crime did the thousands of murdered children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit against the US?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Are you defending yourself against aggression? Are the people who are for some reason labeled "civilians" responsible for the aggression? Did the "civilians" elect aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" voluntarily act as informants in support of the aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" provide financial support to the aggressive leaders? Do they pay taxes? If the answers are "yes", then what makes the "civilians" "innocent"? Would dropping the WMD's deter future aggression?


IIRC, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had higher numbers of "elite" members of Japanese society in them, possibly due to the fact that those cities had not been bombed. Don't know that it was factor in the bombing of those cities.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified


What type of WMDs? Pressure cookers? Anthrax? 5000lb bombs?

----------


## krugminator

> What act of aggression did German civilians in Dresden commit against the US? What crime did the thousands of murdered children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit against the US?


That's why I said adults, because, to me, killing adults from an enemy government is clear cut.  Killing children is a tough moral question.

----------


## eduardo89

> That's why I said adults, because, to me, killing adults from an enemy government is clear cut.  Killing children is a tough moral question.


Killing civilians is immoral, no matter what their government has done.

----------


## krugminator

> Killing civilians is immoral, no matter what their government has done.


I think I am on the same side as Ayn Rand with this.

Q: What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?
AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. The majority in any country at war is often innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for the sins of ours. And if people put up with dictatorship—as some do in Soviet Russia, and some did in Nazi Germany—they deserve what their government deserves. Our only concern should be who started the war. Once that's established, there's no need to consider the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.

----------


## Ender

> It's likely to be abused, but the answer is a very easy yes.  If a foreign government attacks the United States, then any force necessary to eliminate the threat is appropriate. 
> 
> In the case of Japan they had the option to surrender. There was no major active movement to overthrow the government, so the Japanese adults were not innocent. The Japanese were on the side of Hitler and they committed an act of aggression against the United States.


'Scuse me? 

The Japanese were trying to surrender- they were ignored.

Their "act of aggression" on the US was pushed into place by FDR, who took all their oil sources from them and then waited for them to attack. Pearl Harbor was put into place by FDR; he had information that it was coming and he let it happen so that people would rally to jump into WWII, which was not popular among Americans.

As far as a major move to overthrow the government, let us all hope that some conqueror doesn't have that same feelings toward Americans in the future that you have for the Japanese. I think we'd look a whole lot guiltier.

----------


## eduardo89

> I think I am on the same side as Ayn Rand with this.


As usual, Ayn reminds us of what a despicable human being she was.

I guess you and Ayn would agree that it would be justified for a Pakistani whose child was killed by a drone strike ordered by Obama to murder your child?

----------


## oyarde

Who is innocent ? , Who is not ? Who gets to decide ? This will not matter  in terms of military victory , I imagine .....

----------


## krugminator

> As usual, Ayn reminds us of what a despicable human being she was.
> 
> I guess you and Ayn would agree that it would be justified for a Pakistani whose child was killed by a drone strike ordered by Obama to murder your child?


I thought about that and I said it was likely to be abused.  Its a tough question when you aren't attacking aggressive governments, but instead going after individuals. Its a very gray area. I wish Ayn Rand were around to tell me what to think.

----------


## fr33

The only people that would say yes are those making a living off the missile factory. Many of them may not agree though.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

just because a small segment of humanity during .00000000000000000000001% of our existence says it's wrong doesn't mean the other 99.999999999999999999% that engaged in or supported or cheered or didn't have a problem with mass murder were wrong. 

all relative.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I don't want to be offensive, but I am trying to raise every angle to your question, for the sake of interesting discussion. For the sake of extreme example, what if you're facing a super-villain who is literally seconds away from launching a global nuclear attack that will extinguish all life on the planet, and the villain has fashioned himself armor made out of living children; is the only justifiable option to stand back and watch him launch the attack?


Very good question, BDTF. Apparently, the majority of respondents in this thread would just stand back and watch the super-villain destroy humanity.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans.  Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately.  If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Killing children is a tough moral question.


No it isn't.

----------


## UWDude

> Are you defending yourself against aggression? Are the people who are for some reason labeled "civilians" responsible for the aggression? Did the "civilians" elect aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" voluntarily act as informants in support of the aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" provide financial support to the aggressive leaders? Do they pay taxes? If the answers are "yes", then what makes the "civilians" "innocent"? Would dropping the WMD's deter future aggression?


This.

Nuking nazis is a wonderful thing.  Civilians are not innocent.  That's a catch phrase that means nothing.  If the civilians are supporting an aggressive war into your home land, either through direct or passive support, they are not innocent, they are collaborators.  It is a great injustice 6 million nazis died in their sleep and homes whilst 6 million jews died in "showers" and "ovens".  Because the Nazi civilians were not innocent, but the Jewish ones were.

But "innocent" and "civilian" are often used together as if they mean the same thing.  They don't.  You can have guilty, collaborative, aggressive, arrogant civilian populations, and you can have innocent civilian populations. 

There is no need for your people to die because you don't want to kill the people supporting the people attacking your people.

----------


## AlexAmore

> I don't want to be offensive, but I am trying to raise every angle to your question, for the sake of interesting discussion. For the sake of extreme example, what if you're facing a super-villain who is literally seconds away from launching a global nuclear attack that will extinguish all life on the planet, and the villain has fashioned himself armor made out of living children; is the only justifiable option to stand back and watch him launch the attack?


Say you're being shot at by someone who is directly behind a human body shield, you're implying that because of HIS actions, I lose my right to self-defense? I can't shoot back?

I think I can shoot back, and if the innocent person dies, it's on him. 

This is different than the Atomic bombs on Japan. The atomic bombs were not direct self defense, they were about posturing.

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

Seems to me the only time appropriate would be if there was a military campaign attacking US soil in an effort to dismantle our defense and occupy our country. We would have to counter by aggressively dismantling their power structure in their country to avoid defeat. As a result there would inevitably be civilian deaths.

With that being said, should we have ever aligned ourselves Europe against Germany? Should we have ever gotten involved in Asia against the Japanese?

If you want to know who is to blame in these wars, don't fail to leave out the banksters who fund these tyrannical regimes. Germany may have never been capable of what they did, had it not been for the business interests that funded their rise to military supremacy.

----------


## UWDude

> What act of aggression did German civilians in Dresden commit against the US? What crime did the thousands of murdered children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit against the US?


What act of aggression did the people of China commit?  What acts of aggression did the United States commit?  What act of aggression did all the men in the United States armed forces who died because of Japanese aggression, make?  Why did they have to die?  Because of the Japanese and their imperialist aims.

I mean, one of the most moral things to do when a nation aggressively invades another, is to stop sending them the material to make weapons.  Even if Roosevelt set up the fleet at pearl harbor, I still feel he was justified.  Japan and Germany needed to be stopped, because the MOST moral thing one can do when they see one nation invade another out of pure aggression and empire, is to join the invaded side in the fight.

----------


## UWDude

> 'Scuse me? 
> 
> The Japanese were trying to surrender- they were ignored.
> 
> Their "act of aggression" on the US was pushed into place by FDR, who took all their oil sources from them and then waited for them to attack. Pearl Harbor was put into place by FDR; he had information that it was coming and he let it happen so that people would rally to jump into WWII, which was not popular among Americans.
> 
> As far as a major move to overthrow the government, let us all hope that some conqueror doesn't have that same feelings toward Americans in the future that you have for the Japanese. I think we'd look a whole lot guiltier.


1.  No, the Japanese were not trying to surrender, their idea of surrender was kind of a "lets stop and keep what we have" not, "OK, we shouldn't have tried to conquer the world with Hitler, we understand our aggression caused the deaths of tens of millions of people all over the world in a few years, women, children, and soldiers.  We do not deserve any of the empire we have taken with wholesale murder."

2.  As I said above, Roosevelt was RIGHT to stop shipping scrap iron and oil to the Japanese.  The Japanese were slaughtering people wholesale in China.  Embargoes and wars are not always wrong, they are usually just implemented unjustly.

3.  Why hope?  Why care?  History WILL run its course.  The United States WILL NEVER be safe unless it changes its ways.  That will not happen, so eventually, WW III will.  That means American cities will be wiped off the face of the Earth, as will other cities worldwide.

----------


## amy31416

> I think I am on the same side as Ayn Rand with this.
> 
> Q: What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?
> AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. The majority in any country at war is often innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for the sins of ours. And if people put up with dictatorshipas some do in Soviet Russia, and some did in Nazi Germanythey deserve what their government deserves. Our only concern should be who started the war. Once that's established, there's no need to consider the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.


Ayn Rand is an immoral bag of dripping feces. Think for yourself.

----------


## tod evans

> Nuking nazis is a wonderful thing.  Civilians are not innocent.  That's a catch phrase that means nothing.  If the civilians are supporting an aggressive war into your home land, either through direct or passive support, they are not innocent, they are collaborators.  It is a great injustice 6 million nazis died in their sleep and homes whilst 6 million jews died in "showers" and "ovens".  Because the Nazi civilians were not innocent, but the Jewish ones were.


Try substituting the term American for Nazi and Arab or Muslim for Jew...

If your equation doesn't work well for you with those substitutions it would appear your logic is flawed.

Our government is the modern day Nazi, waging war in order to force other nations to accept our idea of the superior race.

----------


## robert68

There’s no greater evil than the state of a tiny country bombing US ships and planes for a few hours, even when the bombing is over 2,000 miles from the US; of course the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.

----------


## Neil Desmond

Civilian is too broad a group or too vague a term.  Even dropping WMDs on "non-civilian" (e.g., military) targets are not necessarily justifiable, either.  On the other hand, there might be circumstances when it is acceptable to subject civilians to such force; for example, a spy may be considered a civilian, yet they may be a part of a system of aggression.

Basically, there are at least a few general questions that are probably being asked, here:

Is collective punishment ever justifiable?
Do the ends justify the means?
Does an individual deserve presumption of innocence?

It is aggressors and the people who are knowingly, intentionally, and freely assisting the aggressors, and only these individuals, who ought to be subjectable to such force (regardless of whether they're military or civilian).

----------


## rp08orbust

> I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans.  Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately.  If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.


Far more lives could have been saved by sabotaging the US nuclear arsenal.  FDR and Truman would have been forced to accept the Japanese terms of surrender that allowed their emperor to save face.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with ending WWII and everything to do with sending a message to the USSR, that message being, essentially, "We value human life no more than you do, so watch out!"

----------


## pcosmar

> Where does the blame lie? Is it all on the individual who pulled the trigger to drop the bomb?


From the one who gave the order,, to the one(s) who created the weapon. All involved share blame.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Try substituting the term American for Nazi and Arab or Muslim for Jew...
> 
> If your equation doesn't work well for you with those substitutions it would appear your logic is flawed.
> 
> Our government is the modern day Nazi, waging war in order to force other nations to accept our idea of the superior race.


Yeah, I've been reading some responses here and kept thinking, "they have judged themselves and all of us".

----------


## pcosmar

> This.
> 
> Nuking nazis is a wonderful thing.  Civilians are not innocent.  That's a catch phrase that means nothing.


Wrong.
Not all Germans were Nazi. There were many who opposed what was done. And there was a resistance within Germany.

You are justifying killing them for the actions of the leaders. Most of the people are manipulated into this crap (in every country) and are NOT active combatants nor willing participants.

----------


## PSYOP

NO

----------


## WM_in_MO

No.

----------


## AuH20

The Japanese brought those bombs upon themselves. Just examine their tactics compared to the Nazis. They killed American POWS on sight and in some cases experimented on them. Secondly, much of the military brass refused to surrender which almost led to a successful coup after the bombings. Thirdly, much of the general population was imbued with this romantic notion that the old gods protected their island sanctuary, due to fortune smiling on them in the past. In contrast, Dresden was pure sport killing with no strategic value.

----------


## tod evans

> Yeah, I've been reading some responses here and kept thinking, "they have judged themselves and all of us".


I view this as the end result of propaganda..

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

if Japanese civilians had control of their government and it wasn't actively killing soldiers and civilians in other countries than maybe a nuclear bomb would never had to happen. Oh yeah and attacking the U.S. wasn't a good idea either, whether we stopped sending oil or not.

This is a good example for what can happen to us if we don't take control of our government back, we are in part guilty for doing nothing about it, just whining and waiting 4 years at a time to try to win a rigged game

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans.  Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately.  If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.


Good point. There is no _moral_ way to fight a war. Once you have gotten yourself into one, your only goal should be to end it quickly and at the lowest cost possible .

However, I can't imagine modern situation, where the use of WMD in civilian areas would be justified.

----------


## otherone

The question isn't 'who is it moral to slaughter', the question is 'who has the *authority* to do the slaughtering'. That we feel it moral to create and feed a  Leviathan, and then imbue it with the legal authority to slaughter *anyone*, is terrifying.

----------


## AuH20

> if Japanese civilians had control of their government and it wasn't actively killing soldiers and civilians in other countries than maybe a nuclear bomb would never had to happen. Oh yeah and attacking the U.S. wasn't a good idea either, whether we stopped sending oil or not.
> 
> This is a good example for what can happen to us if we don't take control of our government back, we are in part guilty for doing nothing about it, just whining and waiting 4 years at a time to try to win a rigged game


Good point. We need to dispose of our emperor and his feudal lords before it is too late.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> As usual, Ayn reminds us of what a despicable human being she was.


Ayn Rand was at least skeptical of the death penalty - it's practical application (not the moral justification):




> However, Rand was rightly concerned that as a matter of practical epistemology, it is difficult to know with certainty whether an accused person has truly committed a capital crime. Since a death penalty, once enforced, can never be taken back, she thought in practice it should only be applied in rare cases.
> 
> http://www.atlassociety.org/capital-punishment






> Personally I think abortion should be banned outright and *there should be the death penalty for all* abortion providers.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive...t-366102.html?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you defending yourself against aggression? Are the people who are for some reason labeled "civilians" responsible for the aggression? Did the "civilians" elect aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" voluntarily act as informants in support of the aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" provide financial support to the aggressive leaders? Do they pay taxes? If the answers are "yes", then what makes the "civilians" "innocent"? Would dropping the WMD's deter future aggression?


Well, paying taxes isn't  a choice, one might as well say that if you pay money to a burgler rather than let him kill your family, you are now guilty for his actions.  Which is ridiculous.

As for the rest of those, there will inevitably be some people in the city that don't do that.

My answer is no.  I'd much rather try to assassinate the aggressors directly, if necessary.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ayn Rand was at least skeptical of the death penalty - it's practical application (not the moral justification):


I agree with Ayn Rand.  But since the abortion providers are acting "Legally" at present, we already know who they are.  As far as I'm concerned, we can skip straight to the penalty phase, in that instance.

I would have voted "Not Guilty" at Scott Roeder's trial.  And every pro-lifer should agree with me.

I support executing all of them...

----------


## Snew

No.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

I think its hilarious how the neo-cons listed Jack Hunter's youthful opposition to the nuking of 100s of thousands of non-combatants as "racism" along with his not worshipping Lincoln--and even more hilarious how Jack Hunter took it all back:




> [Hunter] said he no longer thinks the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks and does not believe that neoconservative foreign policy is driven purely by oil and Israel.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ewest-problem/


Maybe that's why Harry the former Klansman went soft and all of a sudden began worrying about "all those kids" and stopped after only two?




> On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city  and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didnt like the idea of killing "all those kids."91 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/08/r...-harry-truman/


Maybe for the neo-cons the Klan is sort of like Al Qaeda?: sometimes they support them and sometimes they don't.

----------


## pcosmar

> There’s no greater evil than bombing US ships and planes for a few hours, even when it’s over 2,000 miles from the US; of course the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.


Wrong. military targeting military is how war is waged.
Killing civilians (non-combatants)  is NEVER justified. Even when it happens by accident it is not justified, it is tragic. 

Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime.  It is never justified nor justifiable.

----------


## robert68

> Yeah, I've been reading some responses here and kept thinking, "they have judged themselves and all of us".


Their logic easily justifies half the world targeting the civilian population of the US, for what the US government has done to them.

----------


## robert68

> Wrong. military targeting military is how war is waged.
> Killing civilians (non-combatants)  is NEVER justified. Even when it happens by accident it is not justified, it is tragic. 
> 
> Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime.  It is never justified nor justifiable.


I was jesting bro. Guess I should have done it better.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I agree with Ayn Rand.  But since the abortion providers are acting "Legally" at present, we already know who they are.  As far as I'm concerned, we can skip straight to the penalty phase, in that instance.
> 
> I would have voted "Not Guilty" at Scott Roeder's trial.  And every pro-lifer should agree with me.
> 
> *I support executing all of them*...


Quite bloodthirsty for a "pro-lifer".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Quite bloodthirsty for a "pro-lifer".


I'm completely against the killing of the innocent.  Which is why I voted "No" in the above poll.  Its never justified to kill innocent people on purpose, and as someone else pointed out, to do so accidentally is a tragedy, not right.

Abortionists are not innocent, by any stretch of the imagination.  They deserve to die for murdering children.

----------


## AuH20

> What act of aggression did the people of China commit?  What acts of aggression did the United States commit?  What act of aggression did all the men in the United States armed forces who died because of Japanese aggression, make?  Why did they have to die?  Because of the Japanese and their imperialist aims.
> 
> I mean, one of the most moral things to do when a nation aggressively invades another, is to stop sending them the material to make weapons.  Even if Roosevelt set up the fleet at pearl harbor, I still feel he was justified.  Japan and Germany needed to be stopped, because the MOST moral thing one can do when they see one nation invade another out of pure aggression and empire, is to join the invaded side in the fight.


The Japanese empire savaged much of Southeast Asia and then attempted to intimidate (even though FDR knew the attack was imminent)  the U.S. into pulling out of the Pacific. No one should shed a tear for any of them. When a cult of personality forms and takes a series of very poorly thought-out decisions, justice is ultimately swift and relentless. The U.S., with its incredible hubris and arrogance is following the path of Japan in it's own unique way

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Abortionists are not innocent, by any stretch of the imagination.  They deserve to die for murdering children.


And this is why I think "pro-lifers" are dangerous and must never be trusted with power. Given that power, they would go on a killing spree.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Japanese empire savaged much of Southeast Asia and then attempted to intimidate (even though FDR knew the attack was imminent)  the U.S. into pulling out of the Pacific. No one should shed a tear for any of them. When a cult of personality forms and takes a series of very poorly thought-out decisions, justice is ultimately swift and relentless. *The U.S., with its incredible hubris and arrogance is following the path of Japan in it's own unique way*


Oh, I think our government bypassed them some time back in that regard.

----------


## AuH20

> Oh, I think our government bypassed them some time back in that regard.


But the U.S. maintains it's empire more through economic manipulation than the brute force that the Japanese employed in Indonesia, the Phillipines, China etc. The body count is nowhere near as high but the goals are the same.

Chalmers Johnson outlined the sheer brutality of the Japanese: 




> It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians (i.e. Soviet citizens); *the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese.* Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as (forced) prostitutes for front-line troops.* If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not the Soviet Union) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; (by comparison) the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.*[34]

----------


## familydog

> I don't want to be offensive, but I am trying to raise every angle to your question, for the sake of interesting discussion. For the sake of extreme example, what if you're facing a super-villain who is literally seconds away from launching a global nuclear attack that will extinguish all life on the planet, and the villain has fashioned himself armor made out of living children; is the only justifiable option to stand back and watch him launch the attack?


Such outlandish and impossible examples do nothing to further your point. Moral principles have room for gray areas, but to get bogged down in foolish nonsense only distracts from the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children die every day from government weapons of death.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> But the U.S. maintains it's empire more through economic manipulation than the brute force that the Japanese employed in Indonesia, the Phillipines, etc. The body count is nowhere near as high but the goals are the same.


You're kidding, right?   Are you forgetting all the wars for empire and all the dead bodies from them?

----------


## AuH20

> You're kidding, right?   Are you forgetting all the wars for empire and all the dead bodies from them?


Still doesn't compare with 30 MILLION Asiatic people!

----------


## Contumacious

> Are there times when dropping WMDs on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified?
> 
> This news today prompted me to think up above Q.
> 
> *Japan Marks 68th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing*  		 	 		By AP / Shizuo Kambayashi 
> Aug. 05, 2013
> 
> 
>  
> ...



$#@! NO.

Unless, you are a criminal  jingoistic warmonger.

.

----------


## PeaceRequiresAnarchy

> Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified?


Yes.

For example, if every person in the city is guilty of murder and if every civilian in the city is participating in an attempt to commit murder again and the only way to stop them is to drop a weapon of mass destruction on the city killing them all, then I would argue that doing so is justified. Even if there might be ways to stop them without dropping the WMD, the fact that they are all already guilty of murder may mean that dropping the WMD is still justified, although I personally would probably prefer to pursue a course of action that does not involve killing them all.

RIP 8/6/45




> "[Sixty eight] years ago today, on August 6, 1945, at 8:15 in the morning, the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb over the center of the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Hiroshima was the first target ever attacked with nuclear weapons in the history of the world.
> 
> The bomb exploded about 200 yards over the city, creating a 13 kiloton explosion, a fireball, a shock-wave, and a burst of radiation. On the day that the bomb was dropped, there were about 255,000 people living in Hiroshima.
> 
> The explosion completely incinerated everything within a one mile radius of the city center. The shock-wave and the fires ignited by the explosion damaged or completely destroyed about nine-tenths of the buildings in the city. Somewhere between 70,000 and 80,000 people—about one third of the population of the city—immediately died. The heat of the explosion vaporized or burned alive many of those closest to ground zero. Others were killed by the force of the shock-wave or crushed under collapsing buildings. Many more died from acute radiation poisoning—that is, from the effects of having their internal organs being burned away in the intense radiation from the blast.
> 
> By December 1945, thousands more had died from their injuries, from radiation poisoning, or from cancers related to the radioactive burst or the fallout. It is estimated that the atomic bombing killed about 140,000 people, and left thousands more with permanent disabilities.
> 
> Almost all of the people maimed and killed were civilians...."
> ...

----------


## asurfaholic

If you are ok with using nuclear weapons on this capacity, then you should welcome the thought of someone using then on YOUR city. America is the launching pad for most of the world's evil, so we are all responsible by this logic.

Do unto others....

----------


## Xenliad

I'm currently undecided so I didn't vote in the poll. I'm interested in learning more about Japan's surrender before the nuking and about FDR sacrificing pearl harbor. Anyone have resources?

----------


## AuH20

> I'm currently undecided so I didn't vote in the poll. I'm interested in learning more about Japan's surrender before the nuking and about FDR sacrificing pearl harbor. Anyone have resources?


Kyujo Incident (note this occured AFTER the bombings):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident




> The Kyūjō Incident (宮城事件, Kyūjō Jiken?) was an attempted military coup d'état in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night of 14 August 1945 – 15 August 1945, just prior to announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. *The attempted coup was put into effect by the Staff Office of the Ministry of War of Japan and by many from the Imperial Guard of Japan in order to stop the move to surrender.*
> 
> The officers, in an attempt to block the decision to surrender to the Allies, killed Lieutenant General Takeshi Mori of the First Imperial Guards Division and attempted to counterfeit an order to the effect of occupying the Tokyo Imperial Palace. They attempted to place the Emperor under house arrest, using the 2nd Brigade Imperial Guard Infantry. They failed to persuade the Eastern District Army (Japan) and the high command of the Imperial Japanese Army to move forward with the action. Due to their failure to convince the remaining army to oust the Imperial House of Japan, they ultimately committed suicide in traditional Japanese form. As a result, the communique of the intent for a Japanese surrender continued as planned



Pearl Harbor was not a surprise attack:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...ed-fdr-was-not

----------


## Contumacious

> I'm currently undecided so I didn't vote in the poll. I'm interested in learning more about Japan's surrender before the nuking and about FDR sacrificing pearl harbor. Anyone have resources?



A new book entitled *The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victor* and published by Potomac Books Inc. of Washington, D.C. is well researched and gives a very clear picture of how and why the Pearl Harbor myth was created

Based on a good summary of the up-to-date research the author, who is an approving admirer of Roosevelt, concludes that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the attack and that he and his key military and administrative advisers clearly knew, well in advance, that the Japanese were going to attack both Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. Roosevelt wanted to get into the European War but he had been unsuccessful in provoking Germany; therefore, he considered the sacrifice of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines as the best way to get into the European War through the back door of Japan.

.

----------


## krugminator

> If you are ok with using nuclear weapons on this capacity, then you should welcome the thought of someone using then on YOUR city. America is the launching pad for most of the world's evil, so we are all responsible by this logic.
> 
> Do unto others....


America actually is the place where a majority of the world's wealth springs out of.  Even with America's flaws and often misguided policies,  the United States is the most moral superpower in the history of the world.

Saying the United States is on par with (or worse in your case) the evil of any Muslim Middle Eastern country or Communist country  is the kind of backward BS is insane.

----------


## AuH20

> America actually is the place where a majority of the world's wealth springs out of.  Even with America's flaws and often misguided policies,  the United States is the most moral superpower in the history of the world.
> 
> Saying the United States is on par with (or worse in your case) the evil of any Muslim Middle Eastern country or Communist country  is the kind of backward BS is insane.


It's not on par because it doesn't have to use as much lethal force to achieve it's gains, but the results are the same.  It's still domination at the end of the day.

----------


## otherone

> the United States is the most moral superpower in the history of the world.

----------


## asurfaholic

> America actually is the place where a majority of the world's wealth springs out of.  Even with America's flaws and often misguided policies,  the United States is the most moral superpower in the history of the world.
> 
> Saying the United States is on par with (or worse in your case) the evil of any Muslim Middle Eastern country or Communist country  is the kind of backward BS is insane.


Wealth = moral authority? 

That's the back asswards BS i think you may be getting confused about.

Tell me, how many of our own civilians have been killed by another country, compared to how many our own army have killed?

----------


## Cabal

> America actually is the place where a majority of the world's wealth springs out of.  Even with America's flaws and often misguided policies,  the United States is the most moral superpower in the history of the world.
> 
> Saying the United States is on par with (or worse in your case) the evil of any Muslim Middle Eastern country or Communist country  is the kind of backward BS is insane.


Nowhere near as insane as claiming the U.S. is moral.

----------


## krugminator

> Wealth = moral authority? 
> 
> That's the back asswards BS i think you may be getting confused about.
> 
> Tell me, how many of our own civilians have been killed by another country, compared to how many our own army have killed?


I would hope the answer is many fewer US citizens than foreign aggressors. The sole job of government is to protect its citizens.

Wealth is morality. It is a symbol of people voluntarily cooperating. It is a sign of producing to make life better. Wealth is proportional to virtue. The overwhelming majority of the progress in the world over the last 300 years has come from the United States directly or indirectly.

----------


## 69360

WW2 was total war, the entire output of the countries economy was for the military. It wasn't like the wars of today, you have to keep it in perspective. The Japanese had been fighting to the last man/woman/child on the pacific islands like Saipan etc. It was reasonable to think they would have defended the homeland the same. In this context, yes the bombs saved American lives. An invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath.

Oh and you nuke the cities in the zombie apocalypse to keep it from spreading.

----------


## krugminator

> Nowhere near as insane as claiming the U.S. is moral.


Then least immoral.  There are shades of grey in the world. Who would you rather have the most power in the world. The United States or any other country that  is clamoring for power like Russia, China, Iran, etc.

----------


## Contumacious

> America actually is the place where a majority of the world's wealth springs out of.  Even with America's flaws and often misguided policies,  the United States is the most moral superpower in the history of the world.
> 
> Saying the United States is on par with (or worse in your case) the evil of any Muslim Middle Eastern country or Communist country  is the kind of backward BS is insane.


Exactly, why can't those inferior people understand that they have no right to retaliate:

"Let me explain to you the most fundamental principle of American foreign policy: Any country where the people have unpronounceable names can be bombed by the US with impunity. For you Rockwell readers who are a little slow on the uptake, "impunity" means they aren't allowed to bomb us back. "We called no tag-backs." It hardly qualifies as impunity when they blow up our biggest buildings, now does it? They aren't playing by the rules."

.

----------


## Cabal

> I would hope the answer is many fewer US citizens than foreign aggressors. The sole job of government is to protect its citizens.
> 
> Wealth is morality. It is a symbol of people voluntarily cooperating. It is a sign of producing to make life better. Wealth is proportional to virtue. The overwhelming majority of the progress in the world over the last 300 years has come from the United States directly or indirectly.


Wealth has ZERO to do with morality.

Please just stop. Every single statement you've just made is so entirely asinine, and in gross disregard of reality it physically hurts to even read.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> WW2 was total war, the entire output of the countries economy was for the military. It wasn't like the wars of today, you have to keep it in perspective. The Japanese had been fighting to the last man/woman/child on the pacific islands like Saipan etc. It was reasonable to think they would have defended the homeland the same. In this context, yes the bombs saved American lives. An invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath.
> 
> Oh and you nuke the cities in the zombie apocalypse to keep it from spreading.


The bombs saves Japanese lives too, ironically. In the Pacific war for every dead US soldier we killed 10 Japanese on average. The Japanese were extremely stubborn enemy. They just didn't know when to give up. Just imagine what the figthing in the densely populated areas would look like.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Then least immoral.  There are shades of grey in the world. Who would you rather have the most power in the world. The United States or any other country that  is clamoring for power like Russia, China, Iran, etc.


You're sounding like Rubio here.

----------


## Pericles



----------


## Contumacious

> The bombs saves Japanese lives too, ironically. In the Pacific war for every dead US soldier we killed 10 Japanese on average. The Japanese were extremely stubborn enemy. They just didn't know when to give up. Just imagine what the figthing in the densely populated areas would look like.


Should AQ drop a "dirty" bomb in one of our major cities since we are an "stubborn enemy" who "do not know when to give up"?

.

----------


## AuH20

> WW2 was total war, the entire output of the countries economy was for the military. It wasn't like the wars of today, you have to keep it in perspective. The Japanese had been fighting to the last man/woman/child on the pacific islands like Saipan etc. It was reasonable to think they would have defended the homeland the same. In this context, yes the bombs saved American lives. An invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath.
> 
> Oh and you nuke the cities in the zombie apocalypse to keep it from spreading.


At minimum you were looking at a half-million U.S. casualities to take the Japanese homeland. After the incalculable toll it took with the island hopping strategy, the U.S. was not going to let maniacal Japanese off easy by letting them keeping the Emperor and their governing structure intact.

----------


## AuH20

> The bombs saves Japanese lives too, ironically. In the Pacific war for every dead US soldier we killed 10 Japanese on average. The Japanese were extremely stubborn enemy. They just didn't know when to give up. *Just imagine what the figthing in the densely populated areas would look like.*


Women and children wielding pitchforks and kitchen knives. It would have been horrific.

----------


## osan

This can be strongly argued in any of several directions.

I could argue that it is never right to murder innocent civilians.

I could argue that any civilian not fighting or abandoning the "enemy" with whom they are identified by the "other side" has given tacit approval and is therefore not innocent and is thereby subject to anything we throw at them.

I could argue the position of the pure pragmatist that says anything goes which brings us closer to victory.

I could argue that war should be so atrociously horrible that nobody wants to risk it any longer, therefore, we kill women and children in order to achieve the horror necessary to scare back everyone.

I could argue that nobody holds the right to kill another and therefore all war is wrong.

I could argue that all moral decency dictates we have rules of engagement so spare innocents and POWs.

I could argue any of perhaps hundreds of different positions; some subtle, others not so subtle.

The answer is that it depends.  On what?  On the fundamental premises from which one argues.  Virtually any argument can be made and accepted if the right premise is accepted as true.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Should AQ drop a "dirty" bomb in one of our major cities since we are an "stubborn enemy" who "do not know when to give up"?


Well, it's not going to raise their chances of winning.

----------


## AuH20

> This can be strongly argued in any of several directions.
> 
> I could argue that it is never right to murder innocent civilians.
> 
> I could argue that any civilian not fighting or abandoning the "enemy" with whom they are identified by the "other side" has given tacit approval and is therefore not innocent and is thereby subject to anything we throw at them.
> 
> I could argue the position of the pure pragmatist that says anything goes which brings us closer to victory.
> 
> I could argue that war should be so atrociously horrible that nobody wants to risk it any longer, therefore, we kill women and children in order to achieve the horror necessary to scare back everyone.
> ...


The conclusion of the Japanese conflict was so bizarre that you really can't weigh it under normal conditions. Remember that the Nazi leadership was looking to make open-ended deals with the Allies weeks before Berlin fell, while the Japanese were steadfast in their refusal.

----------


## AuH20

The Tokyo firebombings were arguably worse in terms of deaths, yet Hiroshima (a military hub) and Nagasaki get all the attention :

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This can be strongly argued in any of several directions.
> 
> I could argue that it is never right to murder innocent civilians.
> 
> I could argue that any civilian not fighting or abandoning the "enemy" with whom they are identified by the "other side" has given tacit approval and is therefore not innocent and is thereby subject to anything we throw at them.
> 
> I could argue the position of the pure pragmatist that says anything goes which brings us closer to victory.
> 
> I could argue that war should be so atrociously horrible that nobody wants to risk it any longer, therefore, we kill women and children in order to achieve the horror necessary to scare back everyone.
> ...


And yet your argument to EVERYTHING ELSE is "Either you support freedom or you don't."

Don't get me wrong, for a statist this is a very tricky question.  Heck, for a moderate libertarian, this is a tricky question.  As a minarchist, I'm not sure that I wouldn't nuke an enemy if that was the only way to protect my country from invasion, although I can say that under my Presidency we'd never be in that position anyway: and that certainly wasn't the situation under which Japan was atom bombed.  I do know, however, that even if I used nukes to protect my country from invasion, that would still be mass manslaughter at best.

For an an-cap, such as yourself, this should be a very easy question.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

dupe post. :/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans.  Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately.  If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.


The Japanese bombed a military target in response to the American regime's aggression.  There's absolutely no comparison.  Even Pat Buchanan knows better than to make a claim like yours.

----------


## robert68

> Not to forget the massive bombing campaigns in the months prior to the U.S. dropping the atomic bombs.
> 
> "The table below notes the effect of conventional bombing campaigns on Japanese cities:
> 
> ...
> 
> The attack on these major cities caused as many as 500,000 Japanese deaths, while displacing as many as 5,000,000."
> 
> http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217


And those were petro bombs that destroyed all those cities, but they shouldn't count as wmd's when the US uses them, especially against... you know... Asians. 

http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

In theory yes, although I would rarely support it in practice since there are so few circumstances where it is justified.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Much more at link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.
After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka. This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air." Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War.
As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender.
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

I guess terrorist attacks targeted towards American civilians and carried out by those who have been screwed over by U.S. foreign policy are justified because the people on these forums failed to elect more non-interventionist politicians 

This song fits perfectly with the excuses for destruction thrown around in this thread.  And by the way, good job essentially defending Keynsian economics.

----------


## AuH20

> Much more at link:
> http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
> The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.
> After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka. This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air." Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War.
> As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender.
> Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."


All well and good, but they still wouldn't hand over the emperor. That was the sticking point in any negotations. NO EMPEROR, NO DEAL. They wilfully chose the bombs.

----------


## AuH20

> The Japanese bombed a military target in response to the American regime's aggression.  There's absolutely no comparison.  Even Pat Buchanan knows better than to make a claim like yours.


FDR had an arranged alliance with the besieiged Chiang Kai-Shek as well as the Dutch & the British. After the Japanese takeover of Indochina, it was only a matter of time before the oil imports were cut off. This was simply a case of the two biggest kids on the block running out of space in regards to each other. FDR let Pearl Harbor happen so as to mobilize the war effort at home, which was an impeachable offense.

----------


## Cabal

> In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.
> 
> By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."
> 
> By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort, and had directed that the Soviet Union be asked to help end the war. US officials also knew that the key obstacle to ending the war was American insistence on "unconditional surrender," a demand that precluded any negotiations. The Japanese were willing to accept nearly everything, except turning over their semi-divine Emperor. Heir of a 2,600-year-old dynasty, Hirohito was regarded by his people as a "living god" who personified the nation. (Until the August 15 radio broadcast of his surrender announcement, the Japanese people had never heard his voice.) Japanese particularly feared that the Americans would humiliate the Emperor, and even execute him as a war criminal.
> 
> On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."
> 
> The next day, July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."
> ...


http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html





> The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history dating back to 660 B.C. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the Emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Hirohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their Emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The Emperor, Hirohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, "Why then were the bombs dropped?"


http://mises.org/daily/4217/





> Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
> 
> This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.
> 
> On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing "all those kids."91 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.
> 
> Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command’s list of the 33 primary targets.
> 
> Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.93 The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll – nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War – is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."


http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/08/r...-harry-truman/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> All well and good, but they still wouldn't hand over the emperor. That was the sticking point in any negotations. NO EMPEROR, NO DEAL. They wilfully chose the bombs.


That still doesn't justify it.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> All well and good, but they still wouldn't hand over the emperor. That was the sticking point in any negotations. NO EMPEROR, NO DEAL.


That has got to be one of the most viciously ridiculous & murderously asinine excuses I have ever heard for what was done. 




> They wilfully chose the bombs.


Bull$#@!. The U.S. government willfully chose the bombs - for no reason other than to rattle a saber in Stalin's face.

----------


## AuH20

> Bull$#@!. The U.S. government willfully chose the bombs - for no reason other than to rattle a saber in Stalin face.


You do realize that the Russians later got it's nuclear technology freely from the west? There was no saber rattling.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> That has got to be one of the most viciously ridiculous & murderously asinine excuses I have ever heard for what was done. 
> 
> Bull$#@!. The U.S. government willfully chose the bombs - for no reason other than to rattle a saber in Stalin face.


It was the fastest way to bring the war to a close...

----------


## Cabal

> It was the fastest way to bring the war to a close...


No, it wasn't considering the bombs were dropped months after Japanese leadership had been willing to negotiate terms of surrender.

----------


## AuH20

> It was the fastest way to bring the war to a close...


And yet a failed coup almost succeeded in nullifying the eventual surrender, after both bombs had been dropped. Death before dishonor in the face of guaranteed annihilation.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> You do realize that the Russians later got it's nuclear technology freely from the west? There was no saber rattling.


The hell there wasn't. You've already been provided with incontrovertible statements from Nimitz, Arnold, Leahy and even Eisenhower himself that NO military purpose was served by the use of nuclear bombs. It was pure geopolitics at its murderous worst - and NOTHING else.




> It was the fastest way to bring the war to a close...


The war was already over. Japan had NO navy and NO air force left.
Japan was defeated. THEY knew it and the U.S. knew it. Japan wanted to surrender. The U.S. knew THAT, too.
Japan's chiefly desired condition was the preservation of the Emperor  and his family - something which the U.S. ended up granting anyway.
But nothing other than the abject & unconditional surrender would serve - so 150,000 to 250,000 human lives were ended for the sake of imposing a pointless humiliation.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

they're not civilians, they're collateral damage! See I did terminology Olympics, problem fixed.

----------


## AuH20

The Japanese were warned with no ambiguity: 




> In July 1945, while at the Potsdam Conference, Truman issued the "Potsdam Declaration" to the Japanese, after he had been informed of the successful test of the atomic bomb. *Truman called on Japan for immediate surrender, or promised they would face "prompt and utter destruction", "the like of which the world has never seen". The Japanese made no reply at all.*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration




> On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:[1]
> 
> the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
> 
> the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
> 
> "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.[3]
> 
> "The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed"
> ...



Leaflets and round the clock radio warnings:




> The government did not disclose the declaration to the Japanese people. However, the ultimatum was broadcast to the Japanese Home Islands on the radio while leaflets describing it were dropped from American bombers. *Although picking up leaflets and listening to foreign radio broadcasts had been banned by the government, the American propaganda efforts were successful in making the key points of the declaration known to most Japanese.[citation needed] As a result, Prime Minister Suzuki felt compelled to meet the Japanese press, to whom he reiterated his government's commitment to ignore the Allies' demands and fight on.*[5]


_"Prompt and utter destruction, the like of which the world has never seen."_ It doesn't get much clearer than that. The Japanese never contacted the Americans directly nor addressed this serious threat.

----------


## PeaceRequiresAnarchy

It's worth remembering that "the atomic bombing of the Hiroshima city center, in which forces acting on behalf of the United States government deliberately targeted a civilian center and killed over half of all the people living in the city at the time, remains the deadliest act of terrorism in the history of the world."

Also, the OP Poll question asked "Are there times when..." not "Is it conceivable that...." I do not believe that there has ever been a time in history when it would have been justified to drop a WMD on a city with civilian populated buildings and I highly doubt that there will ever be a time in the future when this would be justified. However, as I said before (quoted below) I do believe that a situation in which it would be justified to drop the WMD is conceivable:




> Yes.
> 
> For example, if every person in the city is guilty of murder and if every civilian in the city is participating in an attempt to commit murder again and the only way to stop them is to drop a weapon of mass destruction on the city killing them all, then I would argue that doing so is justified. Even if there might be ways to stop them without dropping the WMD, the fact that they are all already guilty of murder may mean that dropping the WMD is still justified, although I personally would probably prefer to pursue a course of action that does not involve killing them all.
> 
> RIP 8/6/45
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## robert68

> All well and good, but they still wouldn't hand over the emperor. That was the sticking point in any negotations. NO EMPEROR, NO DEAL. They wilfully chose the bombs.


The following assumes your “facts”, purely for the sake of argument.

First, the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had know say in the decisions of their government. It’s collectivist to conflate both them and the Japanese state into "they".

Secondly, by your logic, any party or state that doesn’t submit to the demands of another party or state, is 'choosing' whatever punishment that party or state delivers as a consequence, to them and anyone else, in any number, anywhere in the world. Total nonsense and antithetical to Liberty.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

It's actually hard to answer, and I'll tell you why.

It is blatantly obviously 99.99999999999% of the time no; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly no, but if I sat around for an hour and tortured the hell out of some reason, I could probably come up with a scenario where such a thing would be justified.  It would read like the plot of a Hollywood flick, and the likelihood of such a situation ever existing for any reason would be all but zero, but even 0.00000000001% of the time is technically not zero.

OK, wild speculation...Comic book villain, finger on a button that detonates the whole planet, underground impervious to traditional munitions, in the middle of a city, half the city population will defend the bunker to the death so special ops troops are a no-go, says he'll push the button unless we make him emperor of the planet.  We have 72 hours to decide.  Find the guy who built it and learn that it's real, and specs are such that only a fireball in excess of 250,000° Celsius will destroy the switch without potentially triggering it...

Of course, the situation is so ridiculous as to be absurd.  It's just not going to happen, so the answer is 'no,' but it's not _completely_ impossible for such a scenario, so the answer wouldn't be "never under any circumstance."  The circumstance is just so incredibly unlikely that it wouldn't even fly in a James Bond movie.

I'm probably more dove-ish on this than the vast majority of the 'no' votes in the poll, I'm just really good at coming up with the devil's advocate scenario.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Also, the OP Poll question asked "Are there times when..." not "Is it conceivable that...." I do not believe that there has ever been a time in history when it would have been justified to drop a WMD on a city with civilian populated buildings and I highly doubt that there will ever be a time in the future when this would be justified. However, as I said before (quoted below) I do believe that a situation in which it would be justified to drop the WMD is conceivable:


Thanks for this distinction, I placed my "no" vote based on that and not on unlikely conceivables.

----------


## AuH20

> The following assumes your “facts”, purely for the sake of argument.
> 
> First, the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had know say in the decisions of their government. It’s collectivist to conflate both them and the Japanese state into "they".
> 
> Secondly, by your logic, any party or state that doesn’t submit to the demands of another party or state, is 'choosing' whatever punishment that party or state delivers as a consequence, to them and anyone else, in any number, anywhere in the world. Total nonsense and antithetical to Liberty.


A mass plurality of Japanese citizens lived to serve their living god, the emperor. 'They' is a suitable pronoun. This wasn't exactly a populace taken hostage like in Nazi Germany.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I do believe that a situation in which it would be justified to drop the WMD is conceivable:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				For example, if every person in the city is guilty of murder and if  every civilian in the city is participating in an attempt to commit  murder again and the only way to stop them is to drop a weapon of mass  destruction on the city killing them all, then I would argue that doing  so is justified. Even if there might be ways to stop them without  dropping the WMD, the fact that they are all already guilty of murder  may mean that dropping the WMD is still justified, although I personally  would probably prefer to pursue a course of action that does not  involve killing them all.


This is casuistry. The question was "are there times" - not "is it conceivable (under some ridiculously contrived hypothetical)."

That there might exist pink unicorns who shoot rainbows out of their asses is conceivable.
But are there times when pink unicorns shoot rainbows out of their asses?

See the difference?

----------


## PeaceRequiresAnarchy

> It's actually hard to answer, and I'll tell you why.
> 
> It is blatantly obviously 99.99999999999% of the time no; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly no, but if I sat around for an hour and tortured the hell out of some reason, I could probably come up with a scenario where such a thing would be justified.  It would read like the plot of a Hollywood flick, and the likelihood of such a situation ever existing for any reason would be all but zero, but even 0.00000000001% of the time is technically not zero.
> 
> OK, wild speculation...Comic book villain, finger on a button that detonates the whole planet, underground impervious to traditional munitions, in the middle of a city, half the city population will defend the bunker to the death so special ops troops are a no-go, says he'll push the button unless we make him emperor of the planet.  We have 72 hours to decide.  Find the guy who built it and learn that it's real, and specs are such that only a fireball in excess of 250,000° Celsius will destroy the switch without potentially triggering it...
> 
> Of course, the situation is so ridiculous as to be absurd.  It's just not going to happen, so the answer is 'no,' but it's not _completely_ impossible for such a scenario, so the answer wouldn't be "never under any circumstance."  The circumstance is just so incredibly unlikely that it wouldn't even fly in a James Bond movie.
> 
> I'm probably more dove-ish on this than the vast majority of the 'no' votes in the poll, I'm just really good at coming up with the devil's advocate scenario.


I voted yes for the reason that there are some conceivable circumstances where it would be justified, although it's incredibly unlike that such scenarios would ever occur.

It just so happens that in the extreme scenario you described it still would not be justified to drop the WMD on the city. Murder isn't justified even if murdering someone is necessary to save the world. Of course, I would say that the moral thing to do is to commit the act of murder to save the world, but that still doesn't mean that it would be justified. See my recent blog post "Morally Permissible Unjust Acts" for more on this point.

For a description of a scenario in which it would be justified see my post #115 in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5161007

----------


## JCDenton0451

> The war was already over. Japan had NO navy and NO air force left.
> Japan was defeated. THEY knew it and the U.S. knew it. Japan wanted to surrender. The U.S. knew THAT, too.
> Japan's chiefly desired condition was the preservation of the Emperor  and his family - something which the U.S. ended up granting anyway.
> But nothing other than the abject & unconditional surrender would serve - so 150,000 to 250,000 human lives were ended for the sake of imposing a pointless humiliation.


Ships and planes are just hardware. They can be replaced/rebuilt. The war isn't over until the enemy is completely destroyed or made peace. Japan and the allies couldn't agree on the terms of surrender, so the war continued. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the negotiations, but it must have been a big deal for the Japanese, since it took them 3 weeks after they had been nuked to actually surrender.

----------


## PeaceRequiresAnarchy

> This is casuistry. The question was "are there times" - not "is it conceivable (under some ridiculously contrived hypothetical)."
> 
> That there might exist pink unicorns who shoot rainbows out of their asses is conceivable.
> But are there times when pink unicorns shoot rainbows out of their asses?
> 
> See the difference?


The question was "are there times" not "have there been times in history." If the question was the latter I would have answered no, but since it was in the present tense I believe it is reasonable to consider all possible hypothetical scenarios that could conceivably happen. Thus I answered "yes."

----------


## robert68

> A mass plurality of Japanese citizens lived to serve their living god, the emperor. 'They' is a suitable pronoun. This wasn't exactly a populace taken hostage like in Nazi Germany.


That's not a response to anything I wrote. It's a common practice of yours.

----------


## AuH20

> That's not a response to anything I wrote. It's a common practice of yours.


You stated I was wrong to refer to them as a collective. I disagree. Their very problems were tied to this hive mentality.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I voted yes for the reason that there are some conceivable circumstances where it would be justified, although it's incredibly unlike that such scenarios would ever occur.
> 
> It just so happens that in the extreme scenario you described it still would not be justified to drop the WMD on the city. Murder isn't justified even if murdering someone is necessary to save the world. Of course, I would say that the moral thing to do is to commit the act of murder to save the world, but that still doesn't mean that it would be justified. See my recent blog post "Morally Permissible Unjust Acts" for more on this point.
> 
> For a description of a scenario in which it would be justified see my post #115 in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5161007


Then our definition of 'just' is as different as our definition of 'moral.'




> jus·ti·fy  (jst-f)
> v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies
> v.tr.
> 1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.
> 2. To declare free of blame; absolve.


Validity, necessity, absolution, and blamelessness are all routes to justification.  It is not dependent on some legal minutia.

----------


## robert68

> You stated I was wrong to refer to them as a collective. I disagree.


I said more than that. But have no interest in any further response on it, so forget about the matter. I know what I'm dealing with.

----------


## Contumacious

> Well, it's not going to raise their chances of winning.


Let me remind you that AQ is not a country.  But an organization of individuals who are pissed off at the Judeo American axis of evil because they have murdered , maimed, persecuted their families.

Those Americans who are injured  by any AQ attack  will not be consoled because , the event "it's not going to raise their chances of winning".

.

.

----------


## PeaceRequiresAnarchy

> Then our definition of 'just' is as different as our definition of 'moral.'


I define "just" as that which should be legal and "unjust" as that which should be illegal. On the other hand, just because something is "morally permissible" or "the right thing to do" doesn't necessarily mean that it should be legal to do that thing, although in a large majority of cases morally permissible things should be legal.




> Validity, necessity, absolution, and blamelessness are all routes to justification.  It is not dependent on some legal minutia.


I don't disagree. Maybe this hypothetical scenario will help you see where I am coming from: Imagine an asteroid is flying at the earth and it's going to kill Person A. Further imagine that the only way to prevent the asteroid from killing Person A is if you kill me, an innocent person, against my will (i.e. if you murder me). Is it justified for you to murder me? In other words, should it be legal for you to kill me against my will to save this innocent Person A from the asteroid?

Presumably your answer is no, but what if there are two people, A and B, who the asteroid is going to kill. If the only way to stop the asteroid from killing them is for you to murder me, is it justified? Probably your answer is still no. But what if the asteroid is going to kill five people, or ten, or 100, or a million people?

Where do you draw the line? Personally, I do not draw the line on the issue of what the law should be. I believe that it should be illegal for you to kill an innocent person against their will, even if doing so will prevent the asteroid from killing a million people.

However, I do draw the arbitrary line on the moral question. There is some point (some number of people) at which I now say that it is morally permissible to commit the act of murder to save the number of people. And at some larger number of people, I draw another arbitrary line and now say that "the right thing to do" is to commit the murder. I would probably say that it would be immoral for you to murder someone if doing so only saved a few people from the asteroid. On the other hand, if there was a whole city of a million people that was going to be killed by the asteroid unless you murdered someone against their will, then I would say that the moral "right thing to do" would be to commit the act of murder.

Must I also believe that this act of murder should be legal? Why? I believe that the law should protect peoples' rights in all circumstances. The individual can decide when he or she believes it to be morally appropriate to violate peoples' rights in the name of some greater good, but this person should still have to face the legal consequences associated with violating someone's rights, if their victim wishes to prosecute them and receive restitution, etc.

For more of my thoughts on this, I again point to my recent blog post: Morally Permissible Unjust Acts.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Ships and planes are just hardware. They can be replaced/rebuilt.


Not if you have no manufacturing capacity and no way to import replacements. (The. War. Was. OVER.)




> The war isn't over until the enemy is completely destroyed or made peace.


Japan was no longer any threat and had NO way of reinstantiating itself as a threat. (The. War. Was. OVER.)




> Japan and the allies couldn't agree on the terms of surrender, so the war continued.


How many battles were fought? Where, when and how did they take place? (The. War. Was. OVER.)




> I'm not familiar with the specifics of the negotiations, but it must have been a big deal for the Japanese, since it took them 3 weeks after they had been nuked to actually surrender.


Of course it was a big deal for the Japanese! How could it possibly not have been?
The U.S. obstinately ignored Japan's offers of conditional surrender & obstructively demanded unconditional surrender.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> The question was "are there times" not "have there been times in history." If the question was the latter I would have answered no, but since it was in the present tense I believe it is reasonable to consider all possible hypothetical scenarios that could conceivably happen. Thus I answered "yes."


This is more sophistry.

----------


## Cabal

> This is casuistry. The question was "are there times" - not "is it conceivable (under some ridiculously contrived hypothetical)."
> 
> That there might exist pink unicorns who shoot rainbows out of their asses is conceivable. So what?


This. Philosophizing about ethics from a standard of entirely fabricated no-win lifeboat scenarios that may only have a chance of occurring one time in a million years (if ever at all) in the real world only serves to feed into a false illusion that morality is ultimately relative. It's total bull$#@!. 

"Murder of innocent life is wrong, unless I am dropping a WMD on a civilian population under these specific extreme circumstances which I can't even describe because they are so extraordinarily ridiculous and unlikely, that it's difficult to even fathom them ever coming to realization."

And then what happens is the "conceivable" circumstances are taken to such absurd extremes that the element of choice is completely nullified anyway, rendering a discussion of ethics moot, and you're screwed regardless.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Not if you have no manufacturing capacity and no way to import replacements. (The. War. Was. OVER.)
> 
> Japan was no longer any threat and had NO way of reinstantiating itself as a threat. (The. War. Was. OVER.)


These two statements are plain false. How can you say such a thing? You're making up nonsensical crap to support your absolutist position.




> The U.S. obstinately ignored Japan's offers of conditional surrender & obstructively demanded unconditional surrender.


LOL That's taking it to the ridiculous level.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> This. Philosophizing about ethics from a standard of entirely fabricated no-win lifeboat scenarios that may only have a chance of occurring one time in a million years (if ever at all) in the real world only serves to feed into a false illusion that morality is ultimately relative. It's total bull$#@!. 
> 
> "Murder of innocent life is wrong, unless I am dropping a WMD on a civilian population under these specific extreme circumstances which I can't even describe because they are so extraordinarily ridiculous and unlikely, that it's difficult to even fathom them ever coming to realization."
> 
> And then what happens is the "conceivable" circumstances are taken to such absurd extremes that the element of choice is completely nullified anyway, rendering a discussion of ethics moot, and you're screwed regardless.


I must spread some rep ...

People do not live in lifeboats and "lifeboat scenarios" are almost without exception engineered to create an artificial conflict between our sympathies & empathies (on the one hand) and our intellect & reason (on the other hand) - usually with the (unstated) purpose of discombobulating & neutralizing the latter. When discussing ethics & morality, we are best served by staying out of lifeboats and keeping our feet firmly planted on solid earth.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> These two statements are plain false. How can you say such a thing? You're making up nonsensical crap to support your absolutist position.
> 
> LOL That's taking it to the ridiculous level.


Your complete and utter lack of any substantive rebuttal or counter-argument speaks for itself.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Your complete and utter lack of any substantive rebuttal or counter-argument speaks for itself.


I don't have time to give you a lesson in history, buddy. Go read wikipedia or something...Saying that Japan had no manufacturing capacity left is plain retarded.

----------


## Cabal

Enter Voltaire




> It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.





> Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

----------


## AuH20

> The U.S. obstinately ignored Japan's offers of conditional surrender & obstructively demanded unconditional surrender.


And the Japanese had what leverage? After the fierce fighting that had transpired at Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima, they weren't going to get a fair deal. War is not a moral endeavor. Their own destruction was seeded when they attacked Pearl Harbor and gave fascist FDR exactly what he wanted. An entrance into the war. Prince Konoye begged his military leadership to not engage the Americans when the oil was cut off.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I don't have time to give you a lesson in history, buddy.


That's pretty funny. Considering your claims (from another thread) that the economy of the Soviet Union "seemed to work" and that criticism of central planning is "mostly theory with little empirical data to support it," any "lessons" you might have to offer would pretty much be utterly worthless. In fact, anyone who took such lessons from you would be apt to end up even more ignorant than when they started.




> Saying that Japan had no manufacturing capacity left is plain retarded.


Once it lost its navy and air force and was invested by the U.S. military, Japan had NO CAPACITY to import things it HAD TO HAVE in order maintain manufactury - things such as steel, rubber and oil. Especially oil. (Why the hell do you think they started rampaging around the Pacific the first place?) It sure as hell did not have any capacity left to build warships or warplanes.

What is retarded is the idiotic notion that Japan could have had any chance in hell  of rebuilding its utterly destroyed and non-existent navy or air force  while the nuclear-armed Pacific might of the U.S. military looked on. In order to have the capacity to make something, you have to be able to make it.




> Go read wikipedia or something


So you are a hypocrite as well as ignorant. Why am I not surprised?
(The following post by JCD is from another thread in which he enlightens us as to the dubious value of reading sources.)



> I don't appreciate people spewing book  wisdom at me. I find it very condescending and it bores me. You want to  make a point, do it in your own words. This is what the forum is  supposed to be about.

----------


## DamianTV

In order to answer this question, we need to understand one thing: why the Govts of the world go to War.  

Usually it is for no other purpose than to enslave the Govts of any country to Central Banks.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Politics.  Central Banks are the ONLY reason countries make countries go to War, however Military War is not the only method of destruction by Central Banks.  Central Banks will try to enslave the Govts of other nations by Financial Warfare.  If that does not work, Military War follows.

Thus, justifying WMDs during Military War is nothing more than a means to enslave the Govts of other countries to a Central Bank, and as a result is never truly justified.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I actually disagree with the calls to reject absurdity even as I agree with Cabal's Voltaire quote above, for a couple of reasons.

First, while reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, it is a useful tool for locating bright lines in a philosophical system of belief.  It is wholly untenable to use reductio ad absurdum to reach a conclusion in formal or informal debate, but it is perfect for discovering boundaries of applicability and practicality, two measures critical to moving a philosophy from academia to active governance.  You have to learn where the landmines are and how to avoid them before stepping into the field of battle where such mistakes are less forgiving.

Second, and directly on point to the Voltaire quote above, the best defense against a society taken in by the absurd is inoculation.  If we do not learn the treatment of the absurd when the question is simply academic, then we will be less equipped to discredit it when real-world life, limb, and liberty are on the line.

The key, I think, is to have the level of maturity to treat absurdity correctly.  The understanding that it is a logical fallacy and cannot be used to form conclusions in a logical argument is critical.  The understanding that it's sole purpose is to plumb boundaries of applicability and practicality is likewise critical.  The understanding that a reductio ad absurdum is an imaginary device and not a means to fabricate real-world justification is also very important.

Most of us in here have drawn a line in the sand where we say "this far and no further!" A point where we will take on a willingness to take up deadly force in the defense of our persons and liberties.  How did we arrive at that line in the sand?  Most likely by reductio ad absurdum, which while useless in a debate is as I said useful for locating boundaries.

The absurd, in and of itself, is not evil or illegitimate, but it can be (and often is!) used for evil or illegitimate purposes.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> And the Japanese had what leverage? After the fierce fighting that had transpired at Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima, they weren't going to get a fair deal. War is not a moral endeavor. Their own destruction was seeded when they attacked Pearl Harbor and gave fascist FDR exactly what he wanted. An entrance into the war. Prince Konoye begged his military leadership to not engage the Americans when the oil was cut off.


They didn't have any leverage. That's why they were forced to accept unconditional surrender. This has nothing to with what I said.

The war was over. Japan sought conditional surrender.
The dropping of the nuclear bombs was entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable.
All the U.S. had to do was offer or negotiate acceptable terms for conditional surrender.

----------


## DamianTV

> They didn't have any leverage. That's why they were forced to accept unconditional surrender. This has nothing to with what I said.
> 
> The war was over. Japan sought conditional surrender.
> The dropping of the nuclear bombs was entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable.
> All the U.S. had to do was offer or negotiate acceptable terms for conditional surrender.


Maybe we shouldnt have been doing things that pissed off the Japanese in the first place, then act all shocked and suprised when they retaliated against our Sanctions.  Oh noes, yeah, we're the victims.  Pearl Harbor was PROVOKED by the US Govt.  Not that the attack was justified either...

----------


## dillo

Yes there are, and Japan was probably one of them

----------


## twomp

Not our finest hour. Those of you warmongers who applaud this, please tell me what these people did to you.

----------


## 69360

> Maybe we shouldnt have been doing things that pissed off the Japanese in the first place, then act all shocked and suprised when they retaliated against our Sanctions.  Oh noes, yeah, we're the victims.  Pearl Harbor was PROVOKED by the US Govt.  Not that the attack was justified either...


A country has a right not to trade with another country, however they don't have a right to forbid a third country from trading.

The US didn't like the way the Japanese military was behaving and cut off steel and oil. That was their right and was not a provocation for attack.

----------


## 69360

> Not our finest hour. Those of you warmongers who applaud this, please tell me what these people did to you.


It was very plausible that they would have fought to the last person standing including women and children or committed mass suicide. They did in their territories, why would they not defend their homeland the same or stronger.

----------


## DamianTV

> A country has a right not to trade with another country, however they don't have a right to forbid a third country from trading.
> 
> The US didn't like the way the Japanese military was behaving and cut off steel and oil. That was their right and was not a provocation for attack.


And what was our reasoning to not trade with Japan?  It was to piss Japan off so they'd attack us.  Once they attacked us, the American People would be able to identify them as the "Enemy".

Im still of the conclusion the whole scharade was done in order to draw the US into WWII.  The Govt got Japan to commit the False Flag for us.

----------


## Cabal

> It was very plausible that they would have fought to the last person standing including women and children or committed mass suicide.


I'll grant you that for the sake of argument, and only for the sake of argument. However, it's also very plausible you are completely wrong. Moral of the story: When in doubt? Don't murder hundreds of thousands of people.

----------


## Contumacious

> A country has a right not to trade with another country, however they don't have a right to forbid a third country from trading.
> 
> The US didn't like the way the Japanese military was behaving and cut off steel and oil. That was their right and was not a provocation for attack.


Bull$#@!:

A new book entitled *The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victo*r and published by Potomac Books Inc. of Washington, D.C. is well researched and gives a very clear picture of how and why the Pearl Harbor myth was created. This "patriotic political myth" states that the attack by the Japanese was unprovoked and was a surprise to the Roosevelt administration, as well as, the key military personnel in Washington; but the commanders of Pearl Harbor were at fault for not being ready. *Based on a good summary of the up-to-date research the author, who is an approving admirer of Roosevelt, concludes that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the attack and that he and his key military and administrative advisers clearly knew, well in advance, that the Japanese were going to attack both Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. Roosevelt wanted to get into the European War but he had been unsuccessful in provoking Germany; therefore, he considered the sacrifice of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines as the best way to get into the European War through the back door of Japan*.

.

----------


## eduardo89

> It was very plausible that they would have fought to the last person standing including women and children or committed mass suicide. They did in their territories, why would they not defend their homeland the same or stronger.


The US never needed to fight the Japanese to the last man standing. By August 1945 Japan was no longer a threat to the US. Their entire navy and Air Force had been decimated. They threat had been neutralized.

----------


## 69360

> And what was our reasoning to not trade with Japan?  It was to piss Japan off so they'd attack us.  Once they attacked us, the American People would be able to identify them as the "Enemy".
> 
> Im still of the conclusion the whole scharade was done in order to draw the US into WWII.  The Govt got Japan to commit the False Flag for us.


A reason is not needed to stop trade. A country is not obligated to trade with another. Do you want a world government enforcing mandatory trade?

But the US government did not like the way the Japanese military was behaving in China and the pacific and did not want to supply them with materials to wage war any longer.






> Bull$#@!:
> 
> A new book entitled *The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victo*r and published by Potomac Books Inc. of Washington, D.C. is well researched and gives a very clear picture of how and why the Pearl Harbor myth was created. This "patriotic political myth" states that the attack by the Japanese was unprovoked and was a surprise to the Roosevelt administration, as well as, the key military personnel in Washington; but the commanders of Pearl Harbor were at fault for not being ready. *Based on a good summary of the up-to-date research the author, who is an approving admirer of Roosevelt, concludes that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the attack and that he and his key military and administrative advisers clearly knew, well in advance, that the Japanese were going to attack both Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. Roosevelt wanted to get into the European War but he had been unsuccessful in provoking Germany; therefore, he considered the sacrifice of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines as the best way to get into the European War through the back door of Japan*.
> 
> .


Stoppage of material trade is justification for attack? This wasn't food or goods needed for survival of civilians, it was war material.

----------


## 69360

> The US never needed to fight the Japanese to the last man standing. By August 1945 Japan was no longer a threat to the US. Their entire navy and Air Force had been decimated. They threat had been neutralized.


So the Japanese government and military should have been left, unpunished and in power? What would have stopped them from doing it again in the future? 

We learned that lesson in WW1 with the Germans.

----------


## Cabal



----------


## HOLLYWOOD

Did the bankers approve the bombings? I'm sure they had mutual stock interest in profiteering from all these wars. It's the people that pay to rebuild, not Washington DC or their Elite masters

One thing that many here should recognize, bombing civilians is not just immoral, it's war crimes, and it doesn't matter what type of government is in control. Whether it be communist, fascist, parliamentary, constitutional, democratic, oligarchy, monarchy, etc...  The PEOPLE can ALWAYS being brought to their knees praying to the bidding of the regime in power.  Purposely created ideologies and well crafted propaganda to fool the masses. Gun Ho 2003 and Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Tenet LIES, propagated by propaganda media and very powerful special interests, lead to death, destruction, war crimes, and massive debt on the people. 

The "Information Isolated" German people didn't realize how bad the war situation was until 1945... then after the war, they realized, they were all conned by psychopaths and lies that were running the country for years, by cheap political words and very expense propaganda with force. Yesterday wars were done with brute force and controlled environments.  Today, the propaganda and manipulations are very well crafted and polished for the clueless public over a long stretch of time to 'condition' the public. Just keep repeating those lies, after lies, after lies. Goebbels confiscated radios... when the public is uninformed, with the exception of one source, government propaganda, it's that tyranny, which fools the people into supporting the regime. The last thing governments want, is a society that is independent, well informed, capable of critical-deductive thinking. Every single professional study conducted around the world, resulted that, ~90% of the people are "followers"... at night, you can call it the "Blue Light Bug Zapper". Government takes those studies and uses every means possible in selling/getting those 'followers' to fall into their control/trap. Telling you what to believe and what to think... they pound it into you 24/7 through their direct propaganda programs or their accomplices in news, media, mind control entertainment. They've got you by the balls... and be very careful, because it's those smart 10% that realize the charades and know the con games... those are ones targeted by government. .Gov; Denounces, discredits, smears, 'anti-everything', non-conformists, everything to silence and/or eliminate the truth. You name it, government will come up with a label to either suppress/eliminate/divide and outcasts. It's always devisive policies with the 2 parties of the exact same Power Hungry Borg.

When you have megalomaniacs and psychopaths running countries and controlling the people... they go beyond FAILSAFE(no return situation), and will take everyone down with them or at the very least, the people suffer and always go down first.

War is immoral, bombing civilian populations are war crimes, period!

PS: Japan, well before the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki offered a conditional surrender, there was dialog numerous times, US demanded UNCONDITIONAL surrender, and nuked two cities to enforce that condition. 100,000s civilians died and many long agonizing suffering.

----------


## Danan

> I don't want to be offensive, but I am trying to raise every angle to your question, for the sake of interesting discussion. For the sake of extreme example, what if you're facing a super-villain who is literally seconds away from launching a global nuclear attack that will extinguish all life on the planet, and the villain has fashioned himself armor made out of living children; is the only justifiable option to stand back and watch him launch the attack?


The German Supreme Court has ruled that a law allowing the German military to shoot down a hijacked plane is unconstitutional. They argued that even if we can be almost certain (but never absolutely sure) that the passengers are going to die anyways, nobody has the right to kill innocent people, even if doing so would likely result in fewer deaths.

That was the right decision, imo. Killing innocent people is never justifiable or right.

----------


## Ranger29860

> We learned that lesson in WW1 with the Germans.


Go read a book please I beg you. Any book on WW1 or WW2 would work.

----------


## Contumacious

> Stoppage of material trade is justification for attack? This wasn't food or goods needed for survival of civilians, it was war material.


1- *In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt seizes all Japanese assets in the United States in retaliation for the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China.*

2-* Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan*

Further, FDR had no Constitutional authority to order PRIVATE INDUSTRY  no to sell to whomever they chose.

----------


## Cabal

> So the Japanese government and military should have been left, unpunished and in power? What would have stopped them from doing it again in the future? 
> 
> *We learned that lesson in WW1 with the Germans.*


Lolwut? Your grasp of history reads like a public school indoctrination camp's propaganda curriculum.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So the Japanese government and military should have been left, unpunished and in power? What would have stopped them from doing it again in the future? 
> 
> We learned that lesson in WW1 with the Germans.


Actually, Hitler happened because the world was a bit overzealous in punishing Germany after WW1.  Hitler rose up on the angst and outrage from the German people who were getting shat on by all of Europe.

----------


## eduardo89

> So the Japanese government and military should have been left, unpunished and in power? What would have stopped them from doing it again in the future? 
> 
> We learned that lesson in WW1 with the Germans.


Hahaha, dude read a history book. It was precisely because of the way the allies punished Germany after WWI that there was such strong resent which Hitler capitalized on. Germans resented the US/UK/France for the Versailles Treaty.

----------


## 69360

> Go read a book please I beg you. Any book on WW1 or WW2 would work.


You found this place and still think books will tell you the truth?





> 1- *In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt seizes all Japanese assets in the United States in retaliation for the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China.*
> 
> 2-* Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan*
> 
> Further, FDR had no Constitutional authority to order PRIVATE INDUSTRY  no to sell to whomever they chose.


Japan didn't use oil for heating. 

The trading with the enemy act allowed him.

----------


## Danan

> A reason is not needed to stop trade. A country is not obligated to trade with another. Do you want a world government enforcing mandatory trade?


Countries don't trade, people trade. And obviously American and Japanese people wanted to trade, or else no trade barriers would have been required.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> A country has a right not to trade with another country, however they don't have a right to forbid a third country from trading.
> 
> The US didn't like the way the Japanese military was behaving and cut off steel and oil. That was their right and was not a provocation for attack.


Except that *individuals* have a right to accept and/or decline trade, not governments.

----------


## Cabal

> You found this place and still think books will tell you the truth?



You might try starting here: http://mises.org/Literature

----------


## 69360

> Hahaha, dude read a history book. It was precisely because of the way the allies punished Germany after WWI that there was such strong resent which Hitler capitalized on. Germans resented the US/UK/France for the Versailles Treaty.


The Germans weren't treated harshly ENOUGH after WW1. That is what let the nazis rise to power. They were absolutely crushed after WW2 as was Japan.

----------


## 69360

> Except that *individuals* have a *right* to accept and/or decline trade, not governments.


Not in the US, we have a trading with the enemy act that allowed Roosevelt to do what he did.

----------


## Danan

> Not in the US, we have a trading with the enemy act that allowed Roosevelt to do what he did.


And you have ObamaCare. So forcing people to buy healthcare is obviously right and justifiable.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Not in the US, we have a trading with the enemy act that allowed Roosevelt to do what he did.


So because it's legislated, that automatically means it's justified?

----------


## bunklocoempire

My position has changed on this since I woke up.  (2005 or so -_not_ this morning)

Voted no -and my beliefs are more consistent for it.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It was very plausible that they would have fought to the last person standing including women and children or committed mass suicide. They did in their territories, why would they not defend their homeland the same or stronger.


This is irrelevant. There was no more need to invade Japan than there was to nuke it.
The Japanese were beaten - and they knew it. Prior to the use of nuclear weapons, Japan sued for conditional surrender.
Their suit fell on deaf ears. Peace could have been achieved without invasion or nuclear bombing - but the U.S. government wouldn't hear of it.




> So the Japanese government and military should have been left, unpunished and in power? What would have stopped them from doing it again in the future?


No one has suggested that nothing should have been done to or about Japan's military or government, or that anyone should have gone unpunished. What has been suggested is that terms of conditional surrender should have been pursued - as victors, the U.S. held the upper hand and was very well-positioned to seek appropriately punitive & structural remedies as part of a negotiated peace. But apparently, that just wasn't "good enough" - instead, around 200,000 people (give or take 50,000) had to be be horribly and pointlessly slaughtered in two big, bright flashes for no reason other than to satiate the U.S. government's imperious lust for the unconditional humiliation & utter subjugation of Japan (and to shake a sword at Russia).




> We learned that lesson in WW1 with the Germans.


The lesson we learned from World War One is that when you impose a  feeble & poorly contrived "democracy" on a country and exact  intolerably punitive & humiliating revenge (such as excessively  crushing war reparations), you sow the seeds for future disaster - in  this case, the rise of Hitler and World War Two. So if anything, the example of World  War One Germany actually mitigates against your point.

----------


## eduardo89

> The Germans weren't treated harshly ENOUGH after WW1. That is what let the nazis rise to power. They were absolutely crushed after WW2 as was Japan.


You're joking right? They were saddled with a reparation debt that everyone knew they would never be able to pay, their entire armed forces were destroyed, they lost 1/3 of their territory...

----------


## 69360

> And you have ObamaCare. So forcing people to buy healthcare is obviously right and justifiable.





> So because it's legislated, that automatically means it's justified?


Legal and justifiable are two different distinct things. 

Yes, I think prohibiting citizens of a country from trading with an enemy country is justifiable. Especially so if the enemy country is waging wars of aggression, not self defense.

----------


## 69360

> You're joking right? They were saddled with a reparation debt that everyone knew they would never be able to pay, their entire armed forces were destroyed, they lost 1/3 of their territory...


No, I'm not joking. It took absolutely crushing them after WW2 to break them from waging further wars of aggression. After WW1 they were able to rebuild their industrial and military might within 15 years, they obviously were not destroyed. I have no sympathy for countries that wage war not in self defense.

----------


## 69360

> The lesson we learned from World War One is that when you impose a  feeble & poorly contrived "democracy" on a country and exact  intolerably punitive & humiliating revenge (such as excessively  crushing war reparations), you sow the seeds for future disaster - in  this case, the rise of Hitler and World War Two. So if anything, the example of World  War One Germany actually mitigates against your point.


No, the fact that WW2 in Europe occured proves you wrong. If post WW1 treatment of Germany was so "excessively crushing", then how did they re-arm and wage WW2 in 15 years. The truth is they were not deterred enough. There were still Germans that thought they could do it again and get away with it.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> No, I'm not joking. It took absolutely crushing them after WW2 to break them from waging further wars of aggression.


They were NOT "absolutely crushed" after WW2. Just the opposite. The Allies went to great lengths to rebuild (West) Germany after the war (via the Marshall Plan, etc.). The Allies did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts, of course. Post-WW2 Europe had become the staging ground for the next great phase of geopolitics - the so-called "Cold War" - but the point nevertheless remains: post-WW2 Germany was NOT crushed "absolutely."

Germany WAS "absolutely crushed" after WW1 - which is precisely what provided the impelling force for the rise of the Third Reich.

So if you are not joking, then I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, the fact that WW2 in Europe occured proves you wrong. If post WW1 treatment of Germany was so "excessively crushing", then how did they re-arm and wage WW2 in 15 years. The truth is they were not deterred enough. There were still Germans that thought they could do it again and get away with it.

----------


## AuH20

> *The Germans weren't treated harshly ENOUGH after WW1.* That is what let the nazis rise to power. They were absolutely crushed after WW2 as was Japan.


It was actually the opposite. 132 billion marks as restitution including major territorial concessions. Germany was basically scapegoated for the entire war.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They were NOT "absolutely crushed" after WW2. Just the opposite. The Allies went to great lengths to rebuild (West) Germany after the war (via the Marshall Plan, etc.). The Allies did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts, of course. Post-WW2 Europe had become the staging ground for the next great phase of geopolitics - the so-called "Cold War" - but the point nevertheless remains: post-WW2 Germany was NOT crushed "absolutely."
> 
> Germany WAS "absolutely crushed" after WW1 - which is precisely what provided the impelling force for the rise of the Third Reich.
> 
> So if you are not joking, then I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.


This^^  This is one of the few things about The War that is pretty well agreed upon by everyone from the nuts who write government school textbooks to the Buchananites to the anarcho-capitalists and beyond.

----------


## amy31416

The good thing that I've learned from this thread is that I've chosen wisely in who I block--almost all the pro-violence/murder posters who think it's okay to kill innocent people are blocked.

Much more pleasant, but don't worry--I know you still exist and would consider my own family collateral damage if I were born in the "wrong" place. All of you who fall into that category need professional help in the ethics/morality department and should probably avoid human contact until you take care of that.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Yes, I think prohibiting citizens of a country from trading with an enemy country is justifiable. Especially so if the enemy country is waging wars of aggression, not self defense.



By aggressor, you mean the U.S.?

----------


## Danan

> The good thing that I've learned from this thread is that I've chosen wisely in who I block--almost all the pro-violence/murder posters who think it's okay to kill innocent people are blocked.
> 
> Much more pleasant, but don't worry--I know you still exist and would consider my own family collateral damage if I were born in the "wrong" place. All of you who fall into that category need professional help in the ethics/morality department and should probably avoid human contact until you take care of that.


I actually pitty them. Must be hard to live one's life with so much hatred and ignorance.

----------


## DamianTV

Can I change my mind?  I think it might be okay if a building was only occupied by Politicians and Banksters, where the destruction of the building would do tremendous good by protecting the People from the actions and consequences of those actions from those individuals in the building.

----------


## AuH20

> It was very plausible that they would have fought to the last person standing including women and children or committed mass suicide. They did in their territories, why would they not defend their homeland the same or stronger.


Most likely. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...tion-downfall/



> *
> Death Weighs In*
> 
> *The unprecedented American losses on Okinawa -- one third of the invasion force was killed, wounded or missing -- heightened President Harry Truman's concern about what it would cost in American lives to defeat Japan. He informed the Joint Chiefs of Staff that casualties would be his criterion for authorizing an invasion of the Japanese homeland, a decision he would describe as his hardest up to that point.*
> 
> *
> Predicting Casualty Numbers*
> Truman met with the Joint Chiefs and other senior advisers in June 1945 to review the initial invasion plans. At least four different opinions emerged about potential casualties. These estimates for U.S. losses on Kyushu ranged from as low as 31,000 for just the first thirty days, to a total of about 280,000. Truman authorized the landing on Kyushu, but withheld his approval for Coronet.
> 
> ...




Too much revisionism as we become separated from the event. No one can judge without being in Truman's shoes when he was potentially responsible for a quarter to a half million U.S. servicemen:




> Counting up projected invasion casualties has become important to people seeking to understand why Truman and his cabinet dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. But, as Bernstein points out, *"This is really a post-Hiroshima analysis, growing with more fervor as the distance from Hiroshima grows, about the moral legitimacy and the moral justifications for the act, and not about understanding the decision-making leading to the act."*

----------


## eduardo89

> The good thing that I've learned from this thread is that I've chosen wisely in who I block--almost all the pro-violence/murder posters who think it's okay to kill innocent people are blocked.
> 
> Much more pleasant, but don't worry--I know you still exist and would consider my own family collateral damage if I were born in the "wrong" place. All of you who fall into that category need professional help in the ethics/morality department and should probably avoid human contact until you take care of that.


I only voted the way I did to stay in your good graces.

----------


## amy31416

> I actually pitty them. Must be hard to live one's life with so much hatred and ignorance.


They should be shunned from society, but we have too many people who worship the military industrial complex, even here.

----------


## amy31416

> I only voted the way I did to stay in your good graces.


And because you have a child. 

Quit rep whoring!

----------


## AuH20

> I actually pitty them. Must be hard to live one's life with so much hatred and ignorance.


So much insecurity to revise events to fit your worldview. If the joint chiefs tell you that they are planning massive amphibious landings on Kyushu and the death toll is going to go through the roof, I'm doing all in my power to preserve the lives of my men. End of story. Truman did the right thing but we have the comfort of time to criticize him as some monster, when the majority would be pissing in his stead. Do any of you think this was an easy decision?

----------


## eduardo89

> Quit rep whoring!


Why would I stop when 60% of the time it works every time?

----------


## amy31416

> Why would I stop when 60% of the time it works every time?


That sentence is asinine. I'm calling the grammar police and they will NOT care that you speak several languages.

----------


## Danan

> So much insecurity to revise events to fit your worldview. If the joint chiefs tell you that they are planning massive amphibious landings on Kyushu and the death toll is going to go through the roof, I'm doing all in my power to preserve the lives of my men. End of story. Truman did the right thing.


"Your" men? Because everybody knows that the lifes of some people should be valued more than those of others.

How many dead Japanese civilians would be required to outweigh one US soldier? What's your ratio? 100:1? More? Less?

----------


## Nirvikalpa

No, and it violates the idea that all people are individuals.  That and I absolutely couldn't stand the thought of children and other innocents dying.

----------


## eduardo89

> So much insecurity to revise events to fit your worldview. If the joint chiefs tell you that they are planning massive amphibious landings on Kyushu and the death toll is going to go through the roof, I'm doing all in my power to preserve the lives of my men. End of story. Truman did the right thing but we have the comfort of time to criticize him as some monster, when the majority would be pissing in his stead. Do any of you think this was an easy decision?


I don't think it was a very difficult decision for those that made it. They didn't value human life, regardless of whether is was Americans or Japanese. If they did they would have negotiated to end the war in 1944 when it was obvious that Japan had lost and that the threat to the US was over. After Midway the US knew that Japan would be unable to replace their losses in the war.

----------


## AuH20

> "Your" men? Because everybody knows that the lifes of some people should be valued more than those of others.
> 
> How many dead Japanese civilians would be required to outweigh one US soldier? What's your ratio? 100:1? More? Less?


The bombs most likely saved lives. 1 million projected Japanese casualties via an invasion as opposed to the 300k eventually killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

----------


## AuH20

error.

----------


## eduardo89

> The bombs most likely saved lives. 1 million projected Japanese casualties as opposed to the 300k eventually killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


No, the bombs didn't save a single life.

----------


## 69360

> They were NOT "absolutely crushed" after WW2. Just the opposite. The Allies went to great lengths to rebuild (West) Germany after the war (via the Marshall Plan, etc.). The Allies did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts, of course. Post-WW2 Europe had become the staging ground for the next great phase of geopolitics - the so-called "Cold War" - but the point nevertheless remains: post-WW2 Germany was NOT crushed "absolutely."
> 
> Germany WAS "absolutely crushed" after WW1 - which is precisely what provided the impelling force for the rise of the Third Reich.
> 
> So if you are not joking, then I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.


You say that, yet Germany was able to totally rebuild their war machine in less than a generation. Post WW2 they did not. It took the total destruction of their country to convince them that they could not wage wars of aggression again.




> It was actually the opposite. 132 billion marks as restitution including major territorial concessions. Germany was basically scapegoated for the entire war.


Yet they waged even greater war and took even more territory the next time. It did not work, it took total destruction of their homeland for them to learn.




> By aggressor, you mean the U.S.?


Now, yes. In WW2 absolutely not.

----------


## AuH20

> No, the bombs didn't save a single life.


You need to look further into the event. The bombs were possibly phase 1:




> "JUNE 18, 1945 - When A Democracy Chose Genocide
> 
>     The United States government decided on June 18, 1945, to commit genocide on Japan with poison gas if its government did not surrender after the nuclear attacks approved in the same June 18 meeting. This was discovered by military historians Norman Polmar and Thomas Allen while researching a book on the end of the war in the Pacific. Their discovery came too late for inclusion in the book, so they published it instead in the Autumn 1997 issue of Military History Quarterly.
> 
> *Polmar & Allen ran across references to this meeting in their research and put in a Freedom of Information Act request for related documents. Eventually they received, too late for use in their book, a copy of a document labeled "A Study of the Possible Use of Toxic Gas in Operation Olympic." The word "retaliatory" was PENCILED in between the words "possible" and "use".
> 
>     Apparently there were only five of these documents circulated during World War Two. The document was requested by the Chemical Corps for historical study in 1947. In an attempt to "redact" history, another document was issued to change all the copies to emphasize retaliatory use rather than the reality of the US planning to use it offensively in support of the invasion of Japan.
> *
> *The plan called for US heavy bombers to drop 56,583 tons of poison gas on Japanese cities in the 15 days before the invasion of Kyushu, then another 23,935 tons every 30 days thereafter. Tactical air support would drop more on troop concentrations.
> ...

----------


## eduardo89

> You need to look further into the event. The bombs were phase 1:


The bombs did not save a single life.

You can't say "oh, because they only killed x many people instead of this other plan that would have killed y many people it means z many people were saved"

The bombs did not save a single life, but took hundreds of thousands.

----------


## Danan

> You say that, yet Germany was able to totally rebuild their war machine in less than a generation. Post WW2 they did not. It took the total destruction of their country to convince them that they could not wage wars of aggression again.


Post WW2 they didn't *want* to wage war against the winners of the last war. One of the major reasons was that the winners didn't destruct them totally and actually gave them huge amounts of credit and industrial programs instead of demanding war reparations.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> A country has a right not to trade with another country, however they don't have a right to forbid a third country from trading.
> 
> The US didn't like the way the Japanese military was behaving and cut off steel and oil. That was their right and was not a provocation for attack.


A country doesn't legitimately own anything, therefore it can't legitimately restrict trade between individuals of any countries.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> No, the fact that WW2 in Europe occured proves you wrong.


It does no such thing. You are doing nothing but playing question-begging word games - by trying to define the conclusion you wish to avoid out of existence.

----------


## DamianTV

Broken Window Fallacy.  Causing death of innocents does not save lives.

The only REAL winners of the wars in the 20th century have been the Central Banks.

----------


## Danan

> The bombs most likely saved lives. 1 million projected Japanese casualties via an invasion as opposed to the 300k eventually killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


And invading or bombing them were the only two options? What about retreating?

And even *if* the only possible option to save _some_ innocent lifes is to kill other innocents, that still would be wrong. There is no way that trading innocent people's lifes can be morally justified.

----------


## eduardo89

> And invading or bombing them were the only two options? What about retreating?
> 
> And even *if* the only possible option to save _some_ innocent lifes is to kill other innocents, that still would be wrong. There is no way that trading innocent people's lifes can be morally justified.


It's the same argument politicians use when it comes to "cutting" spending. 

"Oh, if we only go $7 trillion debt instead of $10 trillion over the next 10 years we've "saved" $3 trillion by "cutting" spending"

----------


## AuH20

> And invading or bombing them were the only two options?* What about retreating?*
> 
> And even *if* the only possible option to save _some_ innocent lifes is to kill other innocents, that still would be wrong. There is no way that trading innocent people's lifes can be morally justified.


When the island hopping strategy commenced, there was no option of retreating. 
Look at these numbers:

U.S. Casualties

Saipan (Jun-Jul 1944): 16,612 (Zeiler)
Leyte (Oct 1944): 15,584 (Zeiler)
Iwo Jima (Feb-Mar 1945): 26,821 (Zeiler)
Okinawa (Apr-Jun 1945): 49,151 (Zeiler)

They weren't taking casualties like that to let Japan slip away.

----------


## erowe1

> Can I change my mind?  I think it might be okay if a building was only occupied by Politicians and Banksters, where the destruction of the building would do tremendous good by protecting the People from the actions and consequences of those actions from those individuals in the building.


Yeah, I admit the inclusion of the word "innocent" in the poll question would have eliminated a shred of ambiguity that might be there.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> No one can judge without being in Truman's shoes [...]


What a load of self-serving, mealy-mouthed bull$#@!!

Tell me this: if "no one can judge" then where do you and others get off "judging" what Truman did as being right (or at least acceptable)?

"No one can judge" is nothing more than code for "no one can judge - unless you agree with us, in which case you can judge all you like."




> The bombs most likely saved lives. 1 million projected Japanese casualties via an invasion as opposed to the 300k eventually killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


The bombs did not save one single life. PERIOD. Japan sought to surrender. NO INVASION WAS NEEDED.

If the U.S. government/military gave a damn about "saving American lives" then they could have and should have come to terms with the willing-to-surrender Japanese. The one and only reason any American lives might have been at stake was the U.S. government's viciously irrational and self-serving refusal to accept anything but unconditional surrender.

----------


## osan

Reading this thread reminds me with some jarring violence why humanity is likely doomed.

Jesus it makes my head hurt.

----------


## AuH20

> The bombs did not save one single life. PERIOD. Japan sought to surrender. NO INVASION WAS NEEDED.
> 
> If the U.S. government/military gave a damn about "saving American lives" then they could have and should have come to terms with the willing-to-surrender Japanese.


All Japan had to do was agree to the simple concessions laid out in the Potsdam Declaration. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

They didn't even have the courage to directly contact the Americans but used the Russians as their intermediaries.

----------


## Danan

> The bombs did not save one single life. PERIOD. Japan sought to surrender. NO INVASION WAS NEEDED.
> 
> If the U.S. government/military gave a damn about "saving American lives" then they could have and should have come to terms with the willing-to-surrender Japanese.


All these psychopath "leaders" are interested in is their place in the history books. They don't care for lifes one bit.

----------


## Danan

> All Japan had to do was agree to the simple concessions laid out in the Potsdam Declaration. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration
> 
> They didn't even have the courage to directly contact the Americans but used the Russians as their intermediaries.


Yeah, those civilians should have really accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Serfed them right!

----------


## AuH20

> Yeah, those civilians should have really accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Serfed them right!


Cult of personality. Don't laugh. We could end up in the same boat.

----------


## Danan

> Cult of personality. Don't laugh. We could end up in the same boat.


Every single civilian being bombed supported the emperor?

----------


## AuH20

> Every single civilian being bombed supported the emperor?


Enough to the point that the Japanese killed 30 million fellow Asians during their conquest of Southeast Asia and parts of China.

----------


## 69360

> And invading or bombing them were the only two options? What about retreating?
> 
> And even *if* the only possible option to save _some_ innocent lifes is to kill other innocents, that still would be wrong. There is no way that trading innocent people's lifes can be morally justified.


Why in the world would the US retreat? To leave the government that waged a war of aggression in power so they could rebuild and do it again? They needed to be totally defeated to the point where the population was convinced they would never be able to wage war in this manner again.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> All Japan had to do was agree to the simple concessions laid out in the Potsdam Declaration.


And all the U.S. had to do was acknowledge and pursue Japan's overtures for a face-saving surrender. If the U.S. was as concerned about "saving American lives" as you claim, why didn't they do so (instead of planning for a murderously foolish and unnecessary invasion)?




> They didn't even have the courage to directly contact the Americans but used the Russians as their intermediaries.


Who gives a $#@!? What does it matter whether they wanted to use intermediaries - or who they wanted to use as intermediaries? What the hell has any of that got to do with anything? Every time you are confronted with the essential fact of the matter you dodge and weave and try to "move the goalposts" with some new irrelevancy. Why don't you just address the goddam point for a change, instead of constantly pointing somehwere else and saying the equivalent of "Ooh! Look over there! A squirrel!" ... ?

----------


## AuH20

> And all the U.S. had to do was acknowledge and pursue Japan's overtures for a face-saving surrender. If the U.S. was as concerned about "saving American lives" as you claim, why didn't they do so (instead of planning for a murderously foolish and unnecessary invasion)?


Yes, leave the power structure intact that waged the war against the U.S. It doesn't work that way.




> *Who gives a $#@!?* What does it matter whether they wanted to use intermediaries - or who they wanted to use as intermediaries? What the hell has any of that got to do with anything? Every time you are confronted with the essential fact of the matter you dodge and weave and try to "move the goalposts" with some new irrelevancy. Why don't you just address the goddam point for a change, instead of constantly pointing somehwere else and saying the equivalent of "Ooh! Look over there! A squirrel!" ... ?


If the Japanese were serious about surrendering after Potsdam, they would have directly contacted the Americans.

----------


## nano1895

Ron Paul, in describing how he saw a proper war was to be waged when it came to that situation said that 1. We should not be the initial aggressors  but 2. When war is declared, go "*all out*." I put all out in quotations because he used those specific words many times. I remember at least once he followed that up with "send in the tanks, airplanes, etc." The way he said that it sounded like nothing was off limits, it was going to be a war on all fronts. 

For all the people who are saying that using WMD's on civilians are not justified, would you be ok with using non-WMD's on civilians for a specific military purpose? perhaps in the case of Carpet bombing a cluster of factories to interfere with resource production that would kill civilians as a byproduct?

----------


## AuH20

For the record, I think the entrances into both the South Pacific theater and Western Europe were unnecessary. But once a conflict reaches a certain threshold, regardless of which cold-hearted bastard incited it, then it must be brought to a decided conclusion.

----------


## 69360

> Ron Paul, in describing how he saw a proper war was to be waged when it came to that situation said that 1. We should not be the initial aggressors  but 2. When war is declared, go "*all out*." I put all out in quotations because he used those specific words many times. I remember at least once he followed that up with "send in the tanks, airplanes, etc." The way he said that it sounded like nothing was off limits, it was going to be a war on all fronts. 
> 
> For all the people who are saying that using WMD's on civilians are not justified, would you be ok with using non-WMD's on civilians for a specific military purpose? perhaps in the case of Carpet bombing a cluster of factories to interfere with resource production that would kill civilians as a byproduct?


In total war, like WW2, civilians were a war resource. They produced war materials, they produced food to feed soldiers. Every industry in the country is converted to supply the military.

A lot of people in this thread are basing their point of view on the wars of today, which are limited conflicts, not total war where the whole nation is geared up as a war machine.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Ron Paul, in describing how he saw a proper war was to be waged when it came to that situation said that 1. We should not be the initial aggressors  but 2. When war is declared, go "*all out*." I put all out in quotations because he used those specific words many times. I remember at least once he followed that up with "send in the tanks, airplanes, etc." The way he said that it sounded like nothing was off limits, it was going to be a war on all fronts. 
> 
> For all the people who are saying that using WMD's on civilians are not justified, would you be ok with using non-WMD's on civilians for a specific military purpose? perhaps in the case of Carpet bombing a cluster of factories to interfere with resource production that would kill civilians as a byproduct?


I'm pretty sure Ron felt the same way as many who served in some capacity in the Vietnam Conflict.   I remember it was how the Generals would make plans that would end the war and when congress (bureaucrats) heard those plans, they would step in and say.... "No we can't let you do that, it wouldn't be politically correct.  We might upset somebody."   This type of activity was uncalled for.    When a war is declared, congress and all other parts other than the Commander and Chief should maintain a hands off attitude.   Trying to fight a war with politics involved, will never work.

----------


## 69360

> For the record, I think the entrances into both the South Pacific theater and Western Europe were unnecessary. But once a conflict reaches a certain threshold, regardless of which cold-hearted bastard incited it, then it must be brought to a decided conclusion.


Yes, Korea was a prime example of that as was Iraq and soon Afghanistan. Vietnam turned out ok in the present day mostly by luck. Wars need to be prosecuted and ended decisively or they come back to haunt you.

----------


## AuH20

> Yes, Korea was a prime example of that as was Iraq and soon Afghanistan. Vietnam turned out ok in the present day mostly by luck. Wars need to be prosecuted and ended decisively or they come back to haunt you.


Less wars need to be started. That's the main issue. This way we're not forced into no-win ethical scenarios.

----------


## nano1895

> In total war, like WW2, civilians were a war resource. They produced war materials, they produced food to feed soldiers. Every industry in the country is converted to supply the military.
> 
> A lot of people in this thread are basing their point of view on the wars of today, which are limited conflicts, not total war where the whole nation is geared up as a war machine.


I had a feeling thats what alot of people were basing their arguments on. Nowadays we have to worry more about domestic enemies than foreign.

----------


## 69360

> Less wars need to be started. That's the main issue. This way we're not forced into no-win ethical scenarios.


As an American, the only war I want my country to fight is one where we defend ourselves after an attack. When we do I want us to win with overwhelming force and destroy the enemy by any and all means available so that they can never wage a war of aggression again.

----------


## Victor Grey

The trade sanctions were an act of war, same as a physical invasion. The United States should of kept selling them oil, so they could of got started killing another 30 million assorted asian civilians. This is just, and to be hand-waved.
This is a superior moral stance to killing people yourself.

Bombing civilians is bad, and the actions fit for the lowest mass murderers. 

Selling war materials to mass murderers, for mass murder, is beautiful capitalism. To be defended. Strongly.

If someone is killing people you are on good terms with, sell them gasoline so as that they may get to them faster. Also, sell them weapons to use. This is noble, stay out of these affairs. This is natural, pure free market capitalism, with no glaring reasons that it isn't. 

Collective guilt is nonsense. All civilians aren't responsible for the actions of their leaders. Bombings are unjustifiable.

Collective guilt is justifiable. Bombings in retaliation for trade sanctions are justifiable, because collective guilt is justifiable. Because collective guilt is nonsense.

Not interfering has no negative moral implications ever. Insinuating such is offensive against perfect philosophical doctrine.

Retreat from attackers. When they stop attacking, accept whatever terms they present. To do otherwise, is embarrassing their feelings, and not giving them the proper respect they deserve.

Selling materials to collectives and states, to further statism and aid collectivism, is defense of individualism.

One life of an attacking party, is no less valuable than the life of the attacked party; solely because somebody of an attacked party, else might retaliate against you. This appeal to emotion makes this true.

Wars can be moral. If they cannot, some wars are more moral than others.

No war can be moral. If they cannot, some wars are still more moral than others.

Selling to states is akin to fascism and is disgusting. The bane of all true free market capitalists. Unless you'd like the option do so yourself, with the obvious outcome of purchases being used expressly for war. Then it's economic freedom.

Attacking a collective, for not selling to you, is good. Attacking a collective for attacking you, is bad.
Some murders are more equal than other murders.

You can attack a collective made up of individuals, without attacking individuals.
It's morally more alright to murder the collective, so long as they aren't individuals.

Killing individuals and civilians is murder. Killing soldiers who aren't civilians or individuals, isn't murder.

Civilians are dragged into war by their leaders, and their deaths should be avoided at all costs.
This is absolute. Soldiers are entirely different.


I don't like numerous arguments made to the contrary very much, either.
Get angry if you must.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Yes, leave the power structure intact that waged the war against the U.S. It doesn't work that way.


There you go again. When you have no adequate response, you just try to divert attention away from the fact that you've got nothing by pointing at yet another squirrel. And in this case, it's a squirrel that has already been pointed at ...




> *No one has suggested that nothing should  have been done to or about Japan's military or government, or that  anyone should have gone unpunished*. What has been suggested is that  terms of conditional surrender should have been pursued - *as victors,  the U.S. held the upper hand and was very well-positioned to seek  appropriately punitive & structural remedies as part of a negotiated  peace*. But apparently, that just wasn't "good enough" - instead, around  200,000 people (give or take 50,000) had to be be horribly and  pointlessly slaughtered in two big, bright flashes for no reason other  than to satiate the U.S. government's imperious lust for the  unconditional humiliation & utter subjugation of Japan (and to shake  a sword at Russia).





> If the Japanese were serious about surrendering after Potsdam, they would have directly contacted the Americans.


If the U.S. was serious about "saving American lives," then why should it have given a damn about how Japan went about surrendering? Are you seriously suggesting that massive American casualties ought to have been suffered in an invasion of the Japanese mainland for no other reason than because the Japanese didn't play some idiotic game of "Simon Sez" to suit your tastes?

There's no need for you to answer that. First, because I know that you won't (you'll just tap-dance around some more). Second, because I'll answer it for you. The U.S. did not give a damn about "saving American lives" - what it gave a damn about was the complete subjugation of Japan via unconditional surrender (no matter what the cost) in order to secure for itself an unobstructed pan-Pacific projection of _imperium_. The conditional surrender of Japan would NOT have been sufficient to satisfy America's greedily hegemonic ambitions. Hence, the U.S. government's refusal to consider Japan's overtures had absolutely nothing to do with something so deeply and profoundly stupid and irrational as a quibble over Japan's failure to go through some particular diplomatic channel or other (as you seem to imagine is the case). It had everything to do with securing Japan's utter enthrallment as a U.S. client state (even if it meant the expenditure of tens of thousands of American lives in an invasion of Japan and/or the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives in a nuclear holocaust) - all the blather about "saving lives" is nothing more than a cheap & shabby fig leaf intended to cover the moral depravity of the project. THAT is why the U.S. ignored Japan's attempts at a negotiated peace - it didn't have a goddam thing to do with Potsdam or "directly contacting the Americans" or any other such nonsense.

----------


## RickyJ

This may seem like an easy answer but it isn't. If that population is threating the world, then the answer is yes. Japan at the time however was devastated and of no practical threat to the USA or any other nation. The bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden was murder pure and simple.

----------


## twomp

> The bombs most likely saved lives. 1 million projected Japanese casualties via an invasion as opposed to the 300k eventually killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Bombing to save lives is like having sex for virginity.

----------


## Cabal

> Bombing to save lives is like having sex for virginity.


More like raping to save virginity.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Broken Window Fallacy.  Causing death of innocents does not save lives.
> 
> The only REAL winners of the wars in the 20th century have been the Central Banks.


The broken window fallacy has nothing to do with this example.

The bombs ended the war between Japan and the United States.  To imply that Americans were not being killed in that war is asinine.

----------


## alucard13mm

Aren't we doing that now? With depleted uranium dusts?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There you go again. When you have no adequate response, you just try to divert attention away from the fact that you've got nothing by pointing at yet another squirrel. And in this case, it's a squirrel that has already been pointed at ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the U.S. was serious about "saving American lives," then why should it have given a damn about how Japan went about surrendering? Are you seriously suggesting that massive American casualties ought to have been suffered in an invasion of the Japanese mainland for no other reason than because the Japanese didn't play some idiotic game of "Simon Sez" to suit your tastes?
> 
> There's no need for you to answer that. First, because I know that you won't (you'll just tap-dance around some more). Second, because I'll answer it for you. The U.S. did not give a damn about "saving American lives" - what it gave a damn about was the complete subjugation of Japan via unconditional surrender (no matter what the cost) in order to secure for itself an unobstructed pan-Pacific projection of _imperium_. The conditional surrender of Japan would NOT have been sufficient to satisfy America's greedily hegemonic ambitions. Hence, the U.S. government's refusal to consider Japan's overtures had absolutely nothing to do with something so deeply and profoundly stupid and irrational as a quibble over Japan's failure to go through some particular diplomatic channel or other (as you seem to imagine is the case). It had everything to do with securing Japan's utter enthrallment as a U.S. client state (even if it meant the expenditure of tens of thousands of American lives in an invasion of Japan and/or the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives in a nuclear holocaust) - all the blather about "saving lives" is nothing more than a cheap & shabby fig leaf intended to cover the moral depravity of the project. THAT is why the U.S. ignored Japan's attempts at a negotiated peace - it didn't have a goddam thing to do with Potsdam or "directly contacting the Americans" or any other such nonsense.


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again. * ​  I'll try and hit ya up when I get more ammo.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Aren't we doing that now? With depleted uranium dusts?


Yes, we are.

And until some people witness a four armed baby being born they will use whatever means are in their minds to justify it.

What's it, eight times the rate of birth defects of Hiroshima in Fallujah?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Reading this thread reminds me with some jarring violence why humanity is likely doomed.
> 
> Jesus it makes my head hurt.


+rep.  Either several user accounts have been hijacked by neocon chickenhawks, or there's some embarrassingly bad understanding of history, ethics, and morality going on here.

----------


## AuH20

> The broken window fallacy has nothing to do with this example.
> 
> The bombs ended the war between Japan and the United States.  To imply that Americans were not being killed in that war is asinine.


And the insinuation that the Japanese defensive capabilities were depleted is more typical revisionist nonsense. They were stockpiling for months, knowing full well that they could inflict great damage to an invading American force:

http://www.ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/Op...lThePlann.html




> _Numbers of Japanese Aircraft available to defend their Homeland._
> By the northern summer of 1945, top American planners held the view that Japan had exhausted their Airforce, as US bomber and fighter aircraft were flying over Japan essentially unmolested.
> 
> *But, the Japanese were deliberately husbanding their aircraft, fuel and pilots, holding them in reserve against the day that their country would be invaded by US forces. Allied intelligence considered 2,500 Japanese aircraft were available, with perhaps an additional 300 available to be deployed in suicide attacks.
> 
> In fact, how very wrong these estimates were, in August of 1945, the Japanese nation had 5, 651 Army and 7,074 Navy aircraft, ie 12,725 aircraft of all types available to defend the Homeland.*
> 
> In addition, a newer and more effective model of Okka, a rocket propelled bomb, like the German V-1, but flown by a suicide pilot, were being built and becoming available.
> _
> ...

----------


## UWDude

> Try substituting the term American for Nazi and Arab or Muslim for Jew...
> 
> If your equation doesn't work well for you with those substitutions it would appear your logic is flawed.
> 
> Our government is the modern day Nazi, waging war in order to force other nations to accept our idea of the superior race.



I know, huh?

And it DESERVES what is coming to it, too.




> From the one who gave the order,, to the one(s) who created the weapon. All involved share blame.


What about the arrogant imperialists who started the war?  Do they not get some of the blame for the outcome?  Does the national socialist party, and all the people who voted for, and supported it, get some of the blame for Dresden?

How about ALL of the blame.  A nation, and people, that starts a war for imperialism, or glory, or dick waving, is to blame for ALL the atrocities sprung from that war.

----------


## UWDude

> Wrong.
> Not all Germans were Nazi. There were many who opposed what was done. And there was a resistance within Germany.


Yeah, the only armed opposition was by the communists.
And it is sad that in war, people who do not support their aggressive governments die.  It is just as sad, that in war, soldiers have to die fighting said aggressive governments.  In my mind, these two people are morally equivalent.  And it is a great injustice when either dies, and injustice, for whom responsibility lays at the feet of the aggressor nation, and all those who support it.
And most Americans, French, and Jews were not Nazis either, but they all had to die for Nazi, and to a large extent, German feelings of nationalistic superiority.




> You are justifying killing them for the actions of the leaders. Most of the people are manipulated into this crap (in every country) and are NOT active combatants nor willing participants.


Manipulated by their own vanities and inhumanity.  

And can somebody please explain to me how a good national socialist teacher in 1941 Germany teaching children they are the master race, or a good German citizen reporting a Jew sitting on the wrong park bench, or how even a good German press agent just trying to get the scoop on the western front... ...lets even call her a woman to make her part of the pedestal propped "women and children"....

...is worth more than an American soldier who believed wholeheartedly in the bill of rights and that all men are equal, charging a nazi machine gun nest for this belief.

How is it, that a man of honor, integrity, and love of his fellow man, willing to die for his belief in freedom and equality, is less of a tragedy when killed, less of an injustice when gunned down, then some nazi school teacher?

Who put these silly ideas into people's heads that somehow, it doesn't matter what someone is fighting for, what matters is their profession, or lot in life, or gender?

----------


## BamaAla

Unfortunately, yes. I think the U.S. made the right call in 1945. Unconditional surrender was the only way, and the bombs were seen as the most effective and efficient way to achieve that.

----------


## BarryDonegan

The answer to the OP's question is NO, because no matter how many lives could theoretically have incidentally been lost in a war, a purely civilian population rarely has consented to the conflict, whereas soldiers to some extent have. The ends justifies the means argument fails on moral grounds regardless the difference in casualty count.

----------


## AuH20

> Unfortunately, yes. I think the U.S. made the right call in 1945. Unconditional surrender was the only way, and the bombs were seen as the most effective and efficient way to achieve that.


The bombs certainly were a compelling motivation for the Japanese hierarchy to finally surrender, but the Russian invasion of Manchuria was the second body blow that really threw them into a tailspin. Their agenda all along was to negotiate a weak peace that was predicated on them retaining much of the territory that they had seized, along with avoiding war crime tribunals and most importantly, preserving the imperial system. They never had any serious discussion to meet the Americans half way in their demands. It was all for show.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The answer to the OP's question is NO, because no matter how many lives could theoretically have incidentally been lost in a war, a purely civilian population rarely has consented to the conflict, whereas soldiers to some extent have. The ends justifies the means argument fails on moral grounds regardless the difference in casualty count.


+rep

----------


## AuH20

> The answer to the OP's question is NO, because no matter how many lives could theoretically have incidentally been lost in a war,* a purely civilian population rarely has consented to the conflict,* whereas soldiers to some extent have. The ends justifies the means argument fails on moral grounds regardless the difference in casualty count.


Yet in the final days before the surrender, the Japanese people were instructed to sharpen bamboo sticks and prepare to meet the incoming U.S. Marines at the beaches. This was not your typical civilian/regime relationship, due to the unique, dogmatic cultural identity of the Japanese people. Certainly, there were doves in the war council, but the general population did follow orders obediently, based on reports from that era.

----------


## UWDude

> The answer to the OP's question is NO, because no matter how many lives could theoretically have incidentally been lost in a war, a purely civilian population rarely has consented to the conflict, .


From talking about supporting the troops, to sending off the soldiers to war as heros for the fatherland or the empire of japan, there were, and are, large parades and adulation for the merchants of murder as they march to war for the will of the civilian populations, whilst the pacifists and moral objectionists are ridiculed and derided as unpatriotic, idiotic, weak and traitors by these very same masses of civilians you claim did not consent.  Not only do they consent, they hate those who disagree with them, and often cheer by a vast majority, when "traitors" are sent to prison or executed.

The masses are in no way "innocent".

----------


## Occam's Banana

> And the insinuation that the Japanese defensive capabilities were depleted is more typical revisionist nonsense. They were stockpiling for months, knowing full well that they could inflict great damage to an invading American force:


Congratulations! You've managed to show that Japan could have inflicted massive casualties on American forces had they invaded the Japanese mainland - something that absolutely no one in this thread has denied (and which I and others have, in fact, explicitly affirmed).

----------


## BamaAla

> The bombs certainly were a compelling motivation for the Japanese hierarchy to finally surrender, but the Russian invasion of Manchuria was the second body blow that really threw them into a tailspin. Their agenda all along was to negotiate a weak peace that was predicated on them retaining much of the territory that they had seized, along with avoiding war crimes tribunals and most importantly, preserving the imperial system. They never had any serious discussion to meet the Americans half way in their demands. It was all for show.


The Russians were a big factor. After Yalta, there was *no way* that the U.S. was going to allow the U.S.S.R. to form an occupation zone in Japan, and if the war would have dragged on any longer, that would have been the case. 

I know people here discount the plea of saving American lives, but that was a big factor as well. There were legitimate concerns that it would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives to invade Japan. Don't forget that in February through June the Japanese had fought basically to the last man on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and the prevailing thought was that those campaigns would be cake walks compared to landing on Honshu. You can monday morning quarterback it all you want, but I always come down on the side of the decision that was ultimately made.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Such outlandish and impossible examples do nothing to further your point.


You evidently don't understand my point.




> to get bogged down in foolish nonsense only distracts from the fact that millions of innocent men, women, and children die every day from government weapons of death.


So don't get bogged down in things you don't want to get bogged down in?




> My answer is no. I'd much rather try to assassinate the aggressors directly, if necessary.


That works in the case where it is possible to "assassinate the aggressors directly", but that is not always possible. The other case is no "outlandish impossibility" (quoting familydog).




> Killing innocent people is never justifiable or right.


You are in good company with that view about morality. The more people who hold your view, the more incentive an aggressor would have to make use of human shields; the more confident a shielded aggressor can be that there will be no check against his aggression. So your view benefits those willing to utilize human shields; it gives such aggressors a competitive advantage.

----------


## RickyJ

> The bombs most likely saved lives. 1 million projected Japanese casualties via an invasion as opposed to the 300k eventually killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


There was no need to invade Japan to take it over, all that was necessary was a blockade around the island until they surrendered.  That would have saved the most lives, but no, Roosevelt wanted to show off the nuclear bomb to Russia to let them know what waits for them if they dare attack America or its allies.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Japan offers to surrender with the only condition being to keep their Emperor.

US rejects peace offer and drops two atomic bombs.

Japan surrenders unconditionally, even giving up their Emperor.

US allows Japan to keep Emperor.


Yeah, totally justified.

----------


## Pericles

> There you go again. When you have no adequate response, you just try to divert attention away from the fact that you've got nothing by pointing at yet another squirrel. And in this case, it's a squirrel that has already been pointed at ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the U.S. was serious about "saving American lives," then why should it have given a damn about how Japan went about surrendering? Are you seriously suggesting that massive American casualties ought to have been suffered in an invasion of the Japanese mainland for no other reason than because the Japanese didn't play some idiotic game of "Simon Sez" to suit your tastes?
> 
> There's no need for you to answer that. First, because I know that you won't (you'll just tap-dance around some more). Second, because I'll answer it for you. The U.S. did not give a damn about "saving American lives" - what it gave a damn about was the complete subjugation of Japan via unconditional surrender (no matter what the cost) in order to secure for itself an unobstructed pan-Pacific projection of _imperium_. The conditional surrender of Japan would NOT have been sufficient to satisfy America's greedily hegemonic ambitions. Hence, the U.S. government's refusal to consider Japan's overtures had absolutely nothing to do with something so deeply and profoundly stupid and irrational as a quibble over Japan's failure to go through some particular diplomatic channel or other (as you seem to imagine is the case). It had everything to do with securing Japan's utter enthrallment as a U.S. client state (even if it meant the expenditure of tens of thousands of American lives in an invasion of Japan and/or the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives in a nuclear holocaust) - all the blather about "saving lives" is nothing more than a cheap & shabby fig leaf intended to cover the moral depravity of the project. THAT is why the U.S. ignored Japan's attempts at a negotiated peace - it didn't have a goddam thing to do with Potsdam or "directly contacting the Americans" or any other such nonsense.


The surest way for the US to prevent the loss of life in a war is for the US to surrender.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> The surest way for the US to prevent the loss of life in a war is for the US to surrender.


The surest way for the US to prevent the loss of life in a war is to not enter said war in the first place.

----------


## Antischism

How are there 18 votes for 'yes' on Ron Paul Forums, of all places? I would expect maybe 2 or 3 to account for trolls, but 18? Granted, I haven't read through the replies to see how many of those people actually voiced such a view, but the fact that this thread is 7 pages long worries me. Is there a way to see who voted 'yes', or are those results always anonymous?

----------


## Pericles

> The surest way for the US to prevent the loss of life in a war is to not enter said war in the first place.


Because the US is always the aggressor - correct?

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Because the US is always the aggressor - correct?


In this case, yes.  If the U.S. government would have stayed out of Japan and China's fighting, sanctions would never have been placed on Japan and the bombing of Pearl Harbor would never have occurred.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> How are there 18 votes for 'yes' on Ron Paul Forums, of all places? I would expect maybe 2 or 3 to account for trolls, but 18? Granted, I haven't read through the replies to see how many of those people actually voiced such a view, but the fact that this thread is 7 pages long worries me. Is there a way to see who voted 'yes', or are those results always anonymous?


Have you tried clicking on the numbers?  You should be able to see the individual names that way.

Since we are all individuals, we're not robots in lock step; if we were, we'd all be voting the same way.  Some of those who who voted yes make an argument to defend their position.  I don't agree with it, but I do understand their reasoning & I don't think I would go as far as to label them as trolls.

----------


## Pericles

> In this case, yes.  If the U.S. government would have stayed out of Japan and China's fighting, sanctions would never have been placed on Japan and the bombing of Pearl Harbor would never have occurred.

----------


## Contumacious

> *How are there 18 votes for 'yes' on Ron Paul Forums, of all places*? I would expect maybe 2 or 3 to account for trolls, but 18? Granted, I haven't read through the replies to see how many of those people actually voiced such a view, but the fact that this thread is 7 pages long worries me. Is there a way to see who voted 'yes', or are those results always anonymous?


It appears that we have been invaded by warmongers and jingoists.

.

----------


## AuH20

> In this case, yes.  If the U.S. government would have stayed out of Japan and China's fighting, sanctions would never have been placed on Japan and the bombing of Pearl Harbor would never have occurred.


Yet the Japanese went out of their way to strike Pearl Harbor. It takes two to tango. The Japanese had terrorized Asia and inflicted harm on U.S. Allies. What did they think was going to happen? You don't go up to a grizzly bear and strike him in the face with a cattle prod, since the grizzly will most likely decapitate you.

----------


## JCDenton0451

*Pericles* 
 


Are you trying to make emotional argument in favor of foreign interventions? What's the point of posting all these images?

----------


## Antischism

> *Have you tried clicking on the numbers?*  You should be able to see the individual names that way.
> 
> Since we are all individuals, we're not robots in lock step; if we were, we'd all be voting the same way.  Some of those who who voted yes make an argument to defend their position.  I don't agree with it, but I do understand their reasoning & I don't think I would go as far as to label them as trolls.


Can't believe I overlooked that. Thanks!

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Yet the Japanese went out of their way to strike Pearl Harbor. It takes two to tango. The Japanese had terrorized Asia and inflicted harm on U.S. Allies. What did they think was going to happen? You don't go up to a grizzly bear and strike him in the face with a cattle prod, since the grizzly will most likely decaptitate you.


The Japanese were guilty of being arrogant and stupid. Still, a careful foreign policy could have prevented open confrontation with Japan. It was Roosewelt who went out of his way to provoke them. Banning oil exports to Japan was an act of hostility, plain and simple. 

FDR had a warmongering agenda and was looking for a way to convince Americans to get more involved in the WW2.

----------


## AuH20

> *Pericles* 
>  
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make emotional argument in favor of foreign interventions? What's the point of posting all these images?


I think he's pointing out that the enemy was savage and remorseless & deserved their fate. Savagery begets savagery. Ask the average Burmese, Malaysian, Fillipino or Manchurian Chinese about feeling sympathy for the Japanese and they would summarily laugh in your face.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Japanese in some instances buried their captives alive.

----------


## Contumacious

> Yet the Japanese went out of their way to strike Pearl Harbor. It takes two to tango. The Japanese had terrorized Asia and inflicted harm on U.S. Allies. What did they think was going to happen? You don't go up to a grizzly bear and strike him in the face with a cattle prod, since the grizzly will most likely decapitate you.


So you are saying that FDR was well withing his authority to (a) abandon neutrality ; (2) fight the Japanese in Indochina (3) provoked Japan into attacking us so that he had a pretext to join WWII?

If the answer is yes then you are insane beyond measure.

.

----------


## pcosmar

> Are you trying to make emotional argument in favor of foreign interventions? What's the point of posting all these images?


Not sure of his reasons,, but it is an indictment against war itself.

I often wonder why so much is made of the "holocaust" and other atrocities are overlooked/forgotten.

Oh,, and the evil that is responsible will cause even worse in the ME very soon.
The conditions are being instigated.

----------


## AuH20

> The Japanese were guilty of being arrogant and stupid. Still, a careful foreign policy could have prevented open confrontation with Japan. It was Roosewelt who went out of his way to provoke them. *Banning oil exports to Japan was an act of hostility, plain and simple.* 
> *FDR had a warmongering agenda and was looking for a way to convince Americans to get more involved in the WW2.*


All true, but the Japanese still took the bait. They brought this upon themselves. No one else.

----------


## Pericles

> *Pericles* 
>  
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make emotional argument in favor of foreign interventions? What's the point of posting all these images?


Some members of this forum appear to need some assistance in clarifying their moral thinking. To sell material to Japan to further assist the Japanese Empire in violating your sacred NAP is itself a violation of the NAP in that it enables further aggression.

Lenin was absolutely correct in telling communists not to worry about obtaining the means with which to destroy capitalism. The Capitalist will happily sell us the rope with which we will hang him.

If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, I'm starting to wonder if the NAP is the last refuge of a moral coward.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> All true, but the Japanese still took the bait. They brought this upon themselves. No one else.


My point was that the war with Japan was a war of choice.

----------


## AuH20

> So you are saying that FDR was well withing his authority to (a) abandon neutrality ; (2) fight the Japanese in Indochina (3) provoked Japan into attacking us so that he had a pretext to join WWII?
> 
> If the answer is yes then you are insane beyond measure.
> 
> .


As soon as those bombs came down on December 7th, 1941, then yes. FDR should have been impeached for letting the attack get that far, but the Japanese executed the plan. When you preemptively attack other nations, you risk the chance of being obliterated, which is what makes the Bush Doctrine so outrageous.

----------


## AuH20

> Some members of this forum appear to need some assistance in clarifying their moral thinking. To sell material to Japan to further assist the Japanese Empire in violating your sacred NAP is itself a violation of the NAP in that it enables further aggression.
> 
> Lenin was absolutely correct in telling communists not to worry about obtaining the means with which to destroy capitalism. The Capitalist will happily sell us the rope with which we will hang him.
> 
> If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, I'm starting to wonder if the NAP is the last refuge of a moral coward.


So you're saying that we were directly supplying the Japanese war machine to rape, pillage and terrorize coastal China as well as Southeast Asia, which would indeed make us accomplices to those crimes.

----------


## AuH20

> My point was that the war with Japan was a war of choice.


Yes, these wackjobs wanted an entrance into WW2. No doubt. With that said, Japan deserved everything that came to them. Even the Nazis had certain standards and common sense restrictions that the Japanese bypassed.

----------


## otherone

> I'm starting to wonder if the NAP is the last refuge of a moral coward.



_Mr. trouble never hangs around,
when he hears this Mighty sound,

Here I come to save the day!
That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way!

Yes sir, when there is a wrong to right,
Mighty Mouse will join the fight!

On the sea or on the land,
He's got the situation well in hand! 

We know that when there's danger, we'll never dispair;
Because we know that when there's danger he is there...
On the land on the sea in the air.

We're not worrying at all
We just listen for his call
"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way.

When there is a wrong to right,
Mighty Mouse will joint the fight
"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way!


_

Sniff.  God Bless 'Murkka

----------


## Pericles

> So you're saying that we were directly supplying the Japanese war machine to rape, pillage and terrorize coastal China as well as Southeast Asia, which would indeed make us accomplices to those crimes.


Correct - the US (more appropriately selected individuals and companies) assisted Japan in violating the NAP against China, Burma, and so on.

----------


## Pericles

> _Mr. trouble never hangs around,
> when he hears this Mighty sound,
> 
> Here I come to save the day!
> That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way!
> 
> Yes sir, when there is a wrong to right,
> Mighty Mouse will join the fight!
> 
> ...


If your neighbor was being beaten or raped, would you intervene? After all, you are not being aggressed against.

----------


## pcosmar

> If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, I'm starting to wonder if the NAP is the last refuge of a moral coward.


I wonder at times as well. Though I can respect an honest Pacifist (as opposed to a coward),, I can not be one myself. 

Imperial Japan was not a democracy,, The people had not choice nor say (and likely no knowledge) of what the Emperor and Military did.

In my Military mind,,attacks on civilians are wrong. Period. Not open to debate. 
It is the job of the soldier to defend the noncombatants and to fight a military force. And to do so until there is no military force to fight.

Mass destruction of non combatants is wrong.. regardless of how you attempt to justify it.

----------


## pcosmar

> If your neighbor was being beaten or raped, would you intervene? After all, you are not being aggressed against.


Yes.. and it would be targeted on the attacker.. Not his family or the town he came from.

----------


## Contumacious

> Some members of this forum appear to need some assistance in clarifying their moral thinking. To sell material to Japan to further assist the Japanese Empire in violating your sacred NAP is itself a violation of the NAP in that it enables further aggression.
> 
> Lenin was absolutely correct in telling communists not to worry about obtaining the means with which to destroy capitalism. The Capitalist will happily sell us the rope with which we will hang him.
> 
> If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, I'm starting to wonder if the NAP is the last refuge of a moral coward.


This is really crazy talk.

No wonder the bastards believe they can spy on us.

The federal government had NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to order PRIVATE INDUSTRY not to sell or what to sell.

.

----------


## otherone

> If your neighbor was being beaten or raped, would you intervene? After all, you are not being aggressed against.


I might.  But just because 'I' might does not mean that I have the authority to force 'you' to intervene.  Welcome to the Liberty Movement, Pericles. 
Just because chubby-cheeked cherubic Chinese children were being impaled does not give 'you' the authority to draft 10 million Americans to go fight the evil-doers.  Hop a plane on your own dime if you want to kill some Japs.

----------


## Pericles

> This is really crazy talk.
> 
> No wonder the bastards believe they can spy on us.
> 
> The federal government had NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to order PRIVATE INDUSTRY not to sell or what to sell.
> 
> .


So, from a libertarian perspective, it was wrong to convict the owners of IG Farben of war crimes for selling Zyklon B to the SS?

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Some members of this forum appear to need some assistance in clarifying their moral thinking. To sell material to Japan to further assist the Japanese Empire in violating your sacred NAP is itself a violation of the NAP in that it enables further aggression.
> 
> Lenin was absolutely correct in telling communists not to worry about obtaining the means with which to destroy capitalism. The Capitalist will happily sell us the rope with which we will hang him.
> 
> If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, I'm starting to wonder if the NAP is the last refuge of a moral coward.


Libertarian thinking is localist, not globalist. Japan government's crimes against humanity, insofar as they don't affect us personally is not our concern. Japanese people ought to worry about their government. 

Personally, as much as I detest the State of Israel for its crimes against the Palestinians, I would never go so far as to advocate a trade embargo against it...

Lastly, when considering a policy it is foolish not to consider the likely consequences of it. By emposing embargo on Japan, Roosevelt made war pretty much inevitable.

----------


## otherone

> So, from a libertarian perspective, it was wrong to convict the owners of IG Farben of war crimes for selling Zyklon B to the SS?


People don't kill people, guns kill people?

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Yes, these wackjobs wanted an entrance into WW2. No doubt. With that said, Japan deserved everything that came to them. Even the Nazis had certain standards and common sense restrictions that the Japanese bypassed.


No sympathy for Japan, but I see WW2 as a massive waste of American lives and resources, which ended up empowering all the bad guys in American politics.

----------


## Pericles

> People don't kill people, guns kill people?


Just as long as you are consistent - if you're OK with me selling weapons to someone I know intends to murder you, we have no complaint with each other.

----------


## pcosmar

> No sympathy for Japan, but I see WW2 as a massive waste of American lives and resources, which ended up empowering all the bad guys in American politics.


It increased the power and influence of those that engineered it in the first place.. The Global Bankers.

They funded,, and profited  on all sides.. Everyone else lost.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Just as long as you are consistent - if you're OK with me selling weapons to someone I know intends to murder you, we have no complaint with each other.


Japan had no immediate plans to attack the US. It was US embargo that pushed them in this direction.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> images of dead Chinese civilians


Please point out where I said that the Japanese army was justified in attacking China.  But if you want to insert emotion into this debate, I guess the U.S. was justified going to war with Iraq because of Saddam's cleansing program:



And how hypocritical of you to use the deaths of innocent Chinese civilians in your argument while at the same time justifying the deaths of Japanese civilians at the hands of the U.S. military.

----------


## twomp

> Yes, these wackjobs wanted an entrance into WW2. No doubt. With that said, Japan deserved everything that came to them. Even the Nazis had certain standards and common sense restrictions that the Japanese bypassed.


If John McCain or Lindsey Graham ever became president, you would make a great press secretary for their war machine.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Yet the Japanese went out of their way to strike Pearl Harbor. It takes two to tango. The Japanese had terrorized Asia and inflicted harm on U.S. Allies. What did they think was going to happen? You don't go up to a grizzly bear and strike him in the face with a cattle prod, since the grizzly will most likely decapitate you.


So the U.S. government intervenes in a conflict that was none of its business, receives blowback, and then ends the lives of nearly a hundred thousand people, all in the name of sparing a hundred thousand people?

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> If your neighbor was being beaten or raped, would you intervene? After all, you are not being aggressed against.


If my neighbor is being attacked, only I am intervening.  I'm not forcing anyone to join in the conflict or attacking those who are related to my neighbor's attacker.

----------


## AuH20

> No sympathy for Japan, *but I see WW2 as a massive waste of American lives and resources, which ended up empowering all the bad guys in American politics.*


Agreed. The only parties who benefited from WW2 were the communists (Stalin and Mao). With that said, I still don't have a problem with how the war in the Pacific ended, despite objecting to how it started.

----------


## Contumacious

> So, from a libertarian perspective, it was wrong to convict the owners of IG Farben of war crimes for selling Zyklon B to the SS?


From a warmongers perpective, would it be wrong to convict General Atomics Aeronautical Systems , KBR, Halliburton , Blackwhawk of war crimes from the events that have occurred in Iraq and the AfPak region?

.

----------


## pcosmar

> From a warmongers perpective, would it be wrong to convict General Atomics Aeronautical Systems , KBR, Halliburton , Blackwhawk of war crimes from the events that have occurred in Iraq and the AfPak region?
> 
> .


Corporations are immune from prosecution.

----------


## Pericles

> Japan had no immediate plans to attack the US. It was US embargo that pushed them in this direction.


We have differing views of Japanese policy. The Greater East Asia  Co-Prosperity Sphere relied on oil from the Dutch East Indies to replace  the embargoed supply from the US. The Philippines were astride the  shipping lanes from the East Indies to Japan, and also had deposits of  coal, iron, manganese, and chrome - all necessary metal for the war  industry, and also to be included in the Sphere. US military presence in the Philippines was the main impediment to Japanese policy, Peal Harbor only being the main base where the fleet was based. As long as Japan  followed this Greater east Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere policy, war was inevitable.

http://japanfocus.org/-Janis-Mimura/3657

----------


## Pericles

> If my neighbor is being attacked, only I am intervening.  I'm not forcing anyone to join in the conflict or attacking those who are related to my neighbor's attacker.


The question was - if you intervene are you adhering to the NAP?

----------


## Pericles

> Please point out where I said that the Japanese army was justified in attacking China.  But if you want to insert emotion into this debate, I guess the U.S. was justified going to war with Iraq because of Saddam's cleansing program:
> 
> 
> 
> And how hypocritical of you to use the deaths of innocent Chinese civilians in your argument while at the same time justifying the deaths of Japanese civilians at the hands of the U.S. military.


I seemed to have missed the news where Iraq sunk a US battleship.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> The question was - if you intervene are you adhering to the NAP?


If my neighbor is calling for my help, I have no problem providing aid since we actually have a personal relationship, unlike nation-states.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> I seemed to have missed the news where Iraq sunk a US battleship.


And I seemed to have missed how using the Rape of Nanking can be used as a justification for the U.S. government to interfere with Japan's foreign and economic policies.

----------


## Pericles

> If my neighbor is calling for my help, I have no problem providing aid since we actually have a personal relationship, unlike nation-states.


Translation: I'll commit aggression for someone I like, but not for someone I don't know.

----------


## erowe1

> Just as long as you are consistent - if you're OK with me selling weapons to someone I know intends to murder you, we have no complaint with each other.


I don't think you're comparing like things.

When an individual party deliberately helps another individual party commit a crime, they do something wrong. So there may be warrant for punishing someone who deliberately helps someone else get a weapon for use in a crime. But that doesn't extend to warrant for punishing someone for selling a weapon to another person who's only alleged crime is that they live in some country.

----------


## pcosmar

> And I seemed to have missed how using the Rape of Nanking can be used as a justification for the U.S. government to interfere with Japan's foreign and economic policies.


Well you see,, We were supporting Chiang Kai-shek, (an elitist Power hungry Nationalist)
and it was his failure as a military commander that led directly to the incident at Nanking. (and ultimately to Mao's victory)

He was a brutal Dictator and hated by the people.  Once again,,the US was backing the wrong guy in a fight we had no business in.

Which is really irrelevant since there is no substantial between Socialism and what passes for Communism, and the US was already a socialist state.
And it has nothing to do with the morality (or lack thereof) of Mass killing of civilian populations.

----------


## erowe1

> Translation: I'll commit aggression for someone I like, but not for someone I don't know.


How is that committing aggression?

Now, if he taxed or conscripted or regulated the economic affairs of someone else in order to force them against their will to help him help his neighbor, that would be aggression.

----------


## jllundqu

I am shocked that this is actually being discussed on RPF as if it were debateable.

How can you who voted "yes it's ok to murder innocent women and children" turn around and then bitch about Drone strikes in Pakistan, etc?

The state intentionally and deliberately incinerating tens of thousand of innocent men, women, and children is NOT open to debate!  WTF are any of you thinking??

I'm a combat veteran... I come from a looooong line of combat veterans.  WAR is our enemy... you can "what if" and hypothetical stuff all day rationalizing mass murder, but you either stand for peace and non-agression...or you're just another statist war-monger neocon in sheeps clothing.

----------


## Contumacious

> *I am shocked that this is actually being discussed on RPF as if it were debateable.*
> 
> How can you who voted "yes it's ok to murder innocent women and children" turn around and then bitch about Drone strikes in Pakistan, etc?
> 
> The state intentionally and deliberately incinerating tens of thousand of innocent men, women, and children is NOT open to debate!  WTF are any of you thinking??
> 
> I'm a combat veteran... I come from a looooong line of combat veterans.  WAR is our enemy... you can "what if" and hypothetical stuff all day rationalizing mass murder, but you either stand for peace and non-agression...or you're just another statist war-monger neocon in sheeps clothing.


The $64,000 Question.

.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Some members of this forum appear to need some assistance in clarifying their moral thinking. To sell material to Japan to further assist the Japanese Empire in violating your sacred NAP is itself a violation of the NAP in that it enables further aggression.


Selling inanimate objects does not violate the NAP. What someone does with objects that are sold to them may violate the NAP.

Selling an inanimate object to someone who you believe may use it to violate the rights of others makes you a scumbag and an enabler.




> Lenin was absolutely correct in telling communists not to worry about obtaining the means with which to destroy capitalism. The Capitalist will happily sell us the rope with which we will hang him.


Point taken. Capitalism is suicidal and unworkable. Even self-preservation is no match for the filthy profit motive. Communism it is?




> If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, I'm starting to wonder if the NAP is the last refuge of a moral coward.


I'm starting to wonder if you're intent is simply to offend rather than to have a serious discussion about libertarian principles...

----------


## otherone

> WAR is our enemy... you can "what if" and hypothetical stuff all day rationalizing mass murder, but you either stand for peace and non-agression...or you're just another statist war-monger neocon in sheeps clothing.


Neocon koolaide.
_The state is necessary to fight the state
_

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If John McCain or Lindsey Graham ever became president, you would make a great press secretary for their war machine.


Oh come on now, you and I may disagree with him on aspects of WW2, but you know better than that.  After 4.5 years of posting history if it's not clear that he hates Lindsay McFakes's foreign policy as much as we do then you haven't been paying attention.

See this is the kind of stuff that really bothers me when liberty folken do it.  Spin a blatant and obvious mistruth for it's rhetorical value.  So he's wrong about the necessity of dropping nukes on Japan at a time before any of us were even born, pretending like that means he supports McFake and Lindsay's foreign policy is just dirty, and totally untrue.  

Aren't we the one movement out of ALL of US politics who is most concerned with truth and integrity?  We start abandoning that commitment now and the last six years building the moral high ground were for nothing.  :weep:

----------


## pcosmar

> Oh come on now, you and I may disagree with him on aspects of WW2, but you know better than that.  :


The question of the thread was not whether WWII was justified. Or even if war is justified (regardless of reason)

It was whether Mass destruction of Non-Combatants is morally justified.
Nuking Civilian Populations.

It is a no-brainer. It is wrong.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Mass destruction of non combatants is wrong.. regardless of how you attempt to justify it.


Seems like you are trying to have it both ways? I thought your position was: it would be wrong to kill one non-combatant in order to save a million. So you are in favor of mass destruction of non-combatants, if it's necessary for keeping your hands clean. You are in favor of giving aggressors incentive to utilize human-shields. You understand that the consequence of this policy would be mass destruction of non-combatants.

I'm not trying to misrepresent your position; so if I'm misunderstanding it, sorry for that.




> It appears that we have been invaded by warmongers and jingoists.


If I wanted to use human shields, first thing I would do is send shills to this forum to argue, "hey if someone uses human shields, it's immoral to stop him."




> How are there 18 votes for 'yes' on Ron Paul Forums, of all places? I would expect maybe 2 or 3 to account for trolls, but 18?





> There are no trolls here





> Accusations of being a troll are highly offensive to me, even when they are not directed at me. Its basically saying "F___ You" except a lot more irritating than that. ... I think people should get a verbal warning or when they call someone a troll and a suspension if it continues. Then, a ban if it continues after that.





> *Alleged trolling*
> 
> An accusation of "trolling" is an easy way to shut down a debate. It is an appeal to motivation; its intent is to shift the conversation away from the soundness, or lack thereof, of the arguments put forth, by focusing instead on the allegedly nefarious goals of the person putting forth the argument. Anything with the potential to rile people up has the potential to be labelled as "trolling"; therefore, people can game the system by voicing outrage at someone's remarks and saying, "The drama will not end until this person is silenced! Look, he must be a troll because he knew that he might anger people with his arguments, but he made those arguments anyway!"
> 
> It would be better to avoid discussion of motives altogether, and simply say, "Divisive discussions will be summarily resolved in favor of the side that has the most people willing to get the angriest at the other side and to accordingly cause the most drama if they don't get their way." But such a frank admission of the reality of how the system works would make the site look ludicrous. Therefore, accusations of trolling remain highly popular, even though they are a smokescreen involving speculation into the motives of the person (which cannot be known with certainty, until a surefire method of mind-reading is developed). A few sites, most notably RationalWiki, have been willing to openly admit that they operate as mobocracies in which unruly masses of users whipped up into hysterical headless chicken mode tend to prevail, but Wikipedia has not been so honest.
> 
> There are some people who define "troll" in such a way as to focus on the effects of the person's expressed views rather than on his intent in putting them forth. That is, if the effect is to cause a lot of anger, divisiveness, etc. then it doesn't matter what his intent was; his speech must be suppressed because it stirs up a lot of trouble. Censorship on this grounds has much the same consequence for the wiki as suppression on grounds of evil intent, viz. that the users who are more numerous and more willing to pitch a fit over being offended get their way.
> 
> When a person is silenced for "trolling," there tends to be a spillover effect in which those who try to debate his silencing are also silenced on grounds of "feeding the troll." Thus, it becomes impossible to argue that perhaps there are better ways of handling these situations. This tends to alienate not only the "trolls" but those who oppose viewpoint censorship. The result... is that the remaining population ... tends to be made up of people who aren't particularly tolerant of divergent viewpoints. It's a recipe for groupthink and stasis, since progress depends upon someone coming up with a divergent viewpoint and winning acceptance of it.


http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Viewpoint_censorship

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Translation: I'll commit aggression for someone I like, but not for someone I don't know.


The use of force in order to supplement the defense of a victim of aggression is lawful use of force and not aggression. It's an extension of the right of self-defense of the victimized individual.

There are also limits to the defensive use of force which will result in becoming an aggressive use of force if not taken into consideration.

----------


## jllundqu

> The question of the thread was not whether WWII was justified. Or even if war is justified (regardless of reason)
> 
> It was whether Mass destruction of Non-Combatants is morally justified.
> Nuking Civilian Populations.
> 
> It is a no-brainer. It is wrong.


Ding Ding, winner winner!

/thread

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The question of the thread was not whether WWII was justified. Or even if war is justified (regardless of reason)
> 
> It was whether Mass destruction of Non-Combatants is morally justified.
> Nuking Civilian Populations.
> 
> It is a no-brainer. It is wrong.


I agree, and have said as much.  That doesn't mean AuH2O supports John McCain's and Lindsey Graham's foreign policy.  That's just rhetorical bull$#@! intended to bypass reason and truth and evoke an emotional response that is, in all truth, contrary to his widely known actual position on Lindsay and McFake.

----------


## jllundqu

What is significant here is that 22% of respondants need to pull their head out of their respective asses.

"Yeah I support Ron Paul!  I also support my government mass murdering entire civilian populations... but only when it's REALLY necessary!"

:facepalm:

----------


## Danan

> If your neighbor was being beaten or raped, would you intervene? After all, you are not being aggressed against.


Yes I would intervene. But unlike you I wouldn't kill the innocent cashier at the rapist's grocery store, who, after all, is supporting a criminal with the goods he needs for his rapist existence.

----------


## AuH20

> The question of the thread was not whether WWII was justified. Or even if war is justified (regardless of reason)
> 
> It was whether Mass destruction of Non-Combatants is morally justified.
> Nuking Civilian Populations.
> 
> It is a no-brainer. It is wrong.


It's not morally justified in 99% of the cases you'll come across, but I contest that the unique situation encountered in Japan was warranted, given the clear mission objective from the beginning as well as the hardened nature of the particular enemy.

----------


## Antischism

> stuff


What's your point?

My point is that people who think it's okay to wipe away thousands of innocents have no business being in the liberty movement. There's absolutely no legitimate argument that makes it okay. I don't give a flying $#@! what anyone says in support of their $#@!ty views, it's one stance I will never give an inch or concede on. The sheer amount of hypocrisy evident in people who think the idea is ever okay is astounding if they're choosing to associate with this movement. $#@! the movement if this view is ever okay or if people are going to give way to hawkishness and the complete disregard for human life. I'll $#@!ing spit on it and say good riddance on that day. I'd much rather associate with a staunch anti-war commie than some blowhard 'conservative libertarian' who thinks this is ever okay, under any circumstance.

/end rant

----------


## Danan

> Oh come on now, you and I may disagree with him on aspects of WW2, but you know better than that.  After 4.5 years of posting history if it's not clear that he hates Lindsay McFakes's foreign policy as much as we do then you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> See this is the kind of stuff that really bothers me when liberty folken do it.  Spin a blatant and obvious mistruth for it's rhetorical value.  So he's wrong about the necessity of dropping nukes on Japan at a time before any of us were even born, pretending like that means he supports McFake and Lindsay's foreign policy is just dirty, and totally untrue.  
> 
> Aren't we the one movement out of ALL of US politics who is most concerned with truth and integrity?  We start abandoning that commitment now and the last six years building the moral high ground were for nothing.  :weep:


Everything he said can be used to justify war crimes both in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. Ironically, by his logic the 9/11 attacks would also be entirely justified.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Everything he said can be used to justify war crimes both in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. Ironically, by his logic the 9/11 attacks would also be entirely justified.


So wait, you are justifying a blatant and obvious mistruth, directed at one of our own, because someone, somewhere, could potentially use a similar argument to justify something else somewhere else in an entirely different century?  Really? * Really?
*
How about we just stand up for truth full-stop, even when it doesn't help our case?

You can't have liberty without responsibility.  A big part of responsibility is integrity.  If we are just going to abandon integrity whenever it becomes inconvenient, then wouldn't fighting for liberty just be a waste of time, resources, and effort?  Because without responsibility or integrity, then even if we *win* this fight, then ten years later we will be faced with something even worse than we have now.

The responsibility and integrity that is the flip-side of liberty, is no less important than liberty itself.  You can't have the one without the other.

----------


## AuH20

> Everything he said can be used to justify war crimes both in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. Ironically, by his logic the 9/11 attacks would also be entirely justified.


If that was the case, Saudi Arabia would have been reduced to a smoldering ruin, if you believe the 911 commission report. The 911 'reprisals' were largely misdirected at parties not involved. Secondly, Iraq and Afghanistan are not remotely on the same tier as a beligerrent 1940s Japan, which was a global superpower. They pose no real threat. Neither does Iran in fact.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> ... $#@! the movement if this view is ever okay or if people are going to give way to hawkishness and the complete disregard for human life.


Hold on a second, because you are the one saying it's immoral to kill one non-combatant in order to save a million. You are the one willing to show mass disregard for human life, in order to somehow keep your hands clean.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> So wait, you are justifying a blatant and obvious mistruth, directed at one of our own, because someone, somewhere, could potentially use a similar argument to justify something else somewhere else in an entirely different century?  Really? * Really?
> *
> How about we just stand up for truth full-stop, even when it doesn't help our case?
> 
> You can't have liberty without responsibility.  A big part of responsibility is integrity.  If we are just going to abandon integrity whenever it becomes inconvenient, then wouldn't fighting for liberty just be a waste of time, resources, and effort?  Because without responsibility or integrity, then even if we *win* this fight, then ten years later we will be faced with something even worse than we have now.
> 
> The responsibility and integrity that is the flip-side of liberty, is no less important than liberty itself.  You can't have the one without the other.


Totally with you here.

At the same time, from my perspective, the original quote didn't necessarily accuse him of supporting McCain or Graham or their foreign policies, but stated that he would do a good job at justifying them when it came to PR (because the poster likely considered what he was justifying and McCain/Graham's policies equally unjustifiable).

I might be splitting hairs here, but that's how I took it.

----------


## pcosmar

> Seems like you are trying to have it both ways? I thought your position was: it would be wrong to kill one non-combatant in order to save a million. So you are in favor of mass destruction of non-combatants, if it's necessary for keeping your hands clean. You are in favor of giving aggressors incentive to utilize human-shields. You understand that the consequence of this policy would be mass destruction of non-combatants.
> 
> I'm not trying to misrepresent your position; so if I'm misunderstanding it, sorry for that.


Where is I say anything remotely resembling that.

Yes,,you are misrepresenting me.. You seem to have a serious comprehension problem.

----------


## pcosmar

> Hold on a second, because you are the one saying it's immoral to kill one non-combatant in order to save a million. You are the one willing to show mass disregard for human life, in order to somehow keep your hands clean.


You are seriously trolling  in a most absurd manner.
What the $#@! is your point?

----------


## Contumacious

> You are in favor of giving aggressors incentive to utilize human-shields. You understand that the consequence of this policy would be mass destruction of non-combatants.


OK Vern, let me see if I have understood your position.

1- FDR was free to abandon our NEUTRALITY policy and unconstitutionally engage Japan in Indochina,

2- FDR was free to direct PRIVATE COMPANIES to seize Japan's Assets and to refuse to sell them oil

3- FDR was free to provoke Japan into attacking us thereby using Americans as HUMAN-SHIELDS to protect his policies, ie,   force Japan out of indochina and allow FDR to join WWII.

Right?

.

----------


## AuH20

> Totally with you here.
> 
> At the same time, from my perspective, the original quote didn't necessarily accuse him of supporting McCain or Graham or their foreign policies, *but stated that he would do a good job at justifying them when it came to PR.*I might be splitting hairs here, but that's how I took it.


Welll, because every devious propagandist equates these contemporary 'skirmishes' to WW2 when they are not even remotely comparable. The Ayatollah is not Adolph Hitler that could project power to the Atlantic Ocean as well North Africa and the Russian steppes. Last I checked, Iran hadn't absorbed surrounding nations. Graham, McCain and others are shameful liars.

----------


## pcosmar

> OK Vern, let me see if I have understood your position.
> 
> 
> .


He has no point.. and no position.. (except perhaps moral relativism,, without the moral part)
He is making absurd and pointless arguments to simply stir the pot.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You are seriously trolling  in a most absurd manner.
> What the $#@! is your point?


Why are you acting so emotional? Why "shift the conversation away from the soundness, or lack thereof, of the arguments put forth, by focusing instead on the allegedly nefarious goals of the person putting forth the argument"?




> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> I thought your position was: it would be wrong to kill one non-combatant in order to save a million. So you are in favor of mass destruction of non-combatants, if it's necessary for keeping your hands clean. You are in favor of giving aggressors incentive to utilize human-shields. You understand that the consequence of this policy would be mass destruction of non-combatants.
> 
> 
> Where is I say anything remotely resembling that.


Right here:




> attacks on civilians are wrong. Period. Not open to debate.

----------


## Danan

> So wait, you are justifying a blatant and obvious mistruth, directed at one of our own, because someone, somewhere, could potentially use a similar argument to justify something else somewhere else in an entirely different century?  Really? * Really?
> *
> How about we just stand up for truth full-stop, even when it doesn't help our case?
> 
> You can't have liberty without responsibility.  A big part of responsibility is integrity.  If we are just going to abandon integrity whenever it becomes inconvenient, then wouldn't fighting for liberty just be a waste of time, resources, and effort?  Because without responsibility or integrity, then even if we *win* this fight, then ten years later we will be faced with something even worse than we have now.
> 
> The responsibility and integrity that is the flip-side of liberty, is no less important than liberty itself.  You can't have the one without the other.


What mistruth? The allegation was that McCain could use his skills as a press secretary in order to justify their foreign policy and that's exactly right. Everything he said can be used as a justification for McCain's foreign policy.

So what's the problem?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> He has no point.. and no position.. (except perhaps moral relativism,, without the moral part)
> He is making absurd and pointless arguments to simply stir the pot.


That's what you cry, as you advocate policy that gives advantage to aggressors willing to utilize human shields.

----------


## UWDude

> And how hypocritical of you to use the deaths of innocent Chinese civilians in your argument while at the same time justifying the deaths of Japanese civilians at the hands of the U.S. military.


It's not hypocritical.  China did not attack Japan, therefore, the Chinese were innocent.  Japan attacked china, therefore the Japanese were guilty.  No hypocrisy.

----------


## Danan

> Hold on a second, because you are the one saying it's immoral to kill one non-combatant in order to save a million. You are the one willing to show mass disregard for human life, in order to somehow keep your hands clean.


So if some maniac decided to tell a guy that his whole city will be nuked unless he murders your children with an axe, you would argue that the moral thing to do is to murder your innocent children?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> OK Vern, let me see if I have understood your position.
> 
> 1- FDR was free to abandon our NEUTRALITY policy and unconstitutionally engage Japan in Indochina,
> 
> 2- FDR was free to direct PRIVATE COMPANIES to seize Japan's Assets and to refuse to sell them oil
> 
> 3- FDR was free to provoke Japan into attacking us thereby using Americans as HUMAN-SHIELDS to protect his policies, ie,   force Japan out of indochina and allow FDR to join WWII.
> 
> Right?


I am not participating in any debate about the particulars of WW2. WW2 was mentioned in the original post, but the original question was phrased as a general question about morality, not a question about the historical particulars of WW2.

----------


## pcosmar

> It's not morally justified in 99% of the cases you'll come across, but I contest that the unique situation encountered in Japan was warranted, given the clear mission objective from the beginning as well as the hardened nature of the particular enemy.


NO,, It was not.
They were defeated militarily. Their fleet in ruins.

They could have been blockaded till surrender without setting one foot on their land.

The Nukes were unnecessary.

----------


## UWDude

> What's your point?
> 
> My point is that people who think it's okay to wipe away thousands of innocents have no business being in the liberty movement. There's absolutely no legitimate argument that makes it okay. I don't give a flying $#@! what anyone says in support of their $#@!ty views, it's one stance I will never give an inch or concede on. The sheer amount of hypocrisy evident in people who think the idea is ever okay is astounding if they're choosing to associate with this movement. $#@! the movement if this view is ever okay or if people are going to give way to hawkishness and the complete disregard for human life. I'll $#@!ing spit on it and say good riddance on that day. I'd much rather associate with a staunch anti-war commie than some blowhard 'conservative libertarian' who thinks this is ever okay, under any circumstance.
> 
> /end rant


YOu admitted you couldn't take the time to read the viewpoints of others on this thread already.

Then you go on to call people "innocent" who I have argued were far from innocent.

You understand nothing of this thread's minority positions, and admitted you don't even want to look into it because it seem so clear-cut to you that a civilian's life is somehow worth more than a soldier's life, regardless of the actions of the civilian vs the soldier.  Read the thread, see my nazi schoolteacher vs Liberty minded American soldier for an analysis on the cliche "innocent civilian".

Of course many in the liberty movement think that war is not a necessity, (amongst other idealistic dreams) and that it just should go away.  It is part of the human experience, and will happen time and time again... ...and wars do not happen without the support of the populace.  PERIOD.

----------


## pcosmar

> That's what you cry, as you advocate policy that gives advantage to aggressors willing to utilize human shields.


You can't march an Army behind human shields.
Stop with the ridiculous bull$#@!.

----------


## UWDude

> NO,, It was not.
> They were defeated militarily. Their fleet in ruins.
> 
> They could have been blockaded till surrender without setting one foot on their land.
> 
> The Nukes were unnecessary.


what about all the other mass bombings before?  What about the firebombings?  Were those unnecessary too?  
How do you think Japan came to the point of being on its knees and ready for the final coup de grace of two atomic bombs?
Do you think it came from targetted assassinations and blockades?

WW II was total war, and in total war, you do what it takes to win, and you accept no less than complete, and unconditional surrender of the enemy.  Period.  You don't pussy foot, and you do not negotiate.

----------


## RickyJ

> It's not morally justified in 99% of the cases you'll come across, but I contest that the unique situation encountered in Japan was warranted, given the clear mission objective from the beginning as well as the hardened nature of the particular enemy.


You think it was necessary to use such a destructive bomb that killed more people many years after it went off than it initially killed? Why was invading Japan so important? What could they do if we had them surrounded with ships and aircraft carriers 24/7? They would eventually run out of oil and then would either start to starve to death or surrender. The choice would be theirs to decide, surrender and live or die from starvation. The USA did not have to use nuclear bombs to defeat a mostly defeated nation. Anyone that has studied the history of the time can see that it was all a show mostly to intimidate Russia.

----------


## otherone

> ...and wars do not happen without the support of the populace.  PERIOD.


lol.
I'm pretty sure most of the populace here do not support what we are doing in the Mideast.  So I raise your PERIOD with a QUESTION MARK.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What mistruth? The allegation was that McCain could use his skills as a press secretary in order to justify their foreign policy and that's exactly right. Everything he said can be used as a justification for McCain's foreign policy.
> 
> So what's the problem?


Really?

The picture was painted no matter how carefully worded, that AuH2O would support McCain and Graham's foreign policy.  It doesn't matter that it was technically worded in order to paint that impression while avoiding the technical accusation of it.  It's sophism, it lacks integrity, and it's disgusting.

Are you _seriously_ defending that?  

So was it OK when the M$M and the GOP Establishment claimed that Ron Paul's foreign policy arguments were used by Neville Chamberlain therefore Ron Paul would lead to the rise of another Hitler?

And you are _defending_ that kind of disgusting sophistry??

All because it's an argument you like, so weasel-worded deception is suddenly OK.

SMH

Unless this changes, we will never be victorious in our fight to restore liberty to the United States.  Believe me or not, but mark my words -- we abandon integrity whenever it becomes inconvenient and we've already lost this fight.

----------


## Pericles

> It's not hypocritical.  China did not attack Japan, therefore, the Chinese were innocent.  Japan attacked china, therefore the Japanese were guilty.  No hypocrisy.


The problem is with this original question that ends up with the same debate is the distinction between targeting and any loss of life on the part of non combatants.

There are legitimate military targets in a war that will result in the loss of life of non combatants. Bombing a tank factory is going to be unhealthy for the shift working at the time of bomb impact. A missile silo so well constructed that it takes a nuke to destroy it, is going to be tough on the nearby population.

If the OP had asked - was there a legitimate military target in Horoshima that required the use of a 20kt nuke to destroy it, then there would be the slightest chance of having a productive discussion - but even that would have devolved into this mess.

----------


## UWDude

> You think it was necessary to use such a destructive bomb that killed more people many years after is went off than it initially killed? Why was invading Japan so important? What could they do if we had them surrounded with ships and aircraft carriers 24/7? They would eventually run out of oil and then would either start to stave to death or surrender. The choice would be theirs to decide, surrender and live or die from starvation. The USA did not have to use nuclear bombs to defeat a mostly defeated nation. Anyone that has studied the history of the time can see that it was all a show mostly to intimidate Russia.


Starving a people to death is better than nuking them?  What would the effects of severe malnutrition be upon the populace for decades after?

----------


## Contumacious

> I am not participating in any debate about the particulars of WW2. WW2 was mentioned in the original post, but the original question was phrased as a general question about morality, not a question about the historical particulars of WW2.


You are claiming that it was moral for the bureaucrats inside the DC beltway to provoke an attack and then use deadly force against innocent bystanders. That is indefensible. 

  The US Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that Americans were free to stand their ground so long as they did not provoke the attack.

U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in *Beard v. U.S.[5] (158 U.S. 550 (1895))* that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...*did not provoke the assault,* and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground"

.

----------


## AuH20

> You think it was necessary to use such a destructive bomb that killed more people many years after it went off than it initially killed? *Why was invading Japan so important? What could they do if we had them surrounded with ships and aircraft carriers 24/7?* They would eventually run out of oil and then would either start to stave to death or surrender. The choice would be theirs to decide, surrender and live or die from starvation. The USA did not have to use nuclear bombs to defeat a mostly defeated nation. Anyone that has studied the history of the time can see that it was all a show mostly to intimidate Russia.


Such a strategy would be cost prohibitive given the burdensome costs to feed, fuel and outfit a naval and ground force of that size. The supply lines were distant and difficult to maintain as well. Remember that the U.S. was technically broke at the time and barely scraped by on war bonds.

----------


## pcosmar

> ...and wars do not happen without the support of the populace.  PERIOD.


Bull$#@!.
They do and have.. 
The King says go and they go. If they refuse the King's soldiers kill them.
This is how it has always been. Though now the kings get slick and used subtler threats. Convince them to go out of fear.

How many were jailed or left the country over VietNam? Korea?

$#@!, thousands were jailed in WWI for opposing the war. There were press gangs in the civil war forcing the population to fight.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You can't march an Army behind human shields.


The only one talking about "Army" is you. I was talking about aggressors in general. You can shield an aggressor behind humans, but some people will never see it coming, because their vision is limited to a paradigm promoted by U.N. and the U.S. armed forces. A strategic aggressor will not play by U.N.'s rules.




> Stop with the ridiculous bull$#@!.


Back at you.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You are claiming that it was moral for the bureaucrats inside the DC beltway to provoke an attack and then use deadly force against innocent bystanders.


You are hallucinating. I don't know the first thing about WW2, and I've said nothing about it.

----------


## pcosmar

> what about all the other mass bombings before?  What about the firebombings?  Were those unnecessary too?


Yes, I believe they were unnecessary.

I believe there were a lot of tactical blunders made.  Starting with our involvement in WWI,, had it not been for that and the League of Nations there would have been no WWII.

----------


## UWDude

> lol.
> I'm pretty sure most of the populace here do not support what we are doing in the Mideast.  So I raise your PERIOD with a QUESTION MARK.


And I have already addressed that moral equivalency with the nazi school teacher vs liberty loving american soldier.

I mean, have you seen the glorification of American soldiers in American culture?  Every veterans day we get a load of B.S. about them from a large majority of the masses, and a large majority of corporations, both in their ads, and in their programs for vets.  We are told to "support the troops", and most people follow that nonsense blindly too.

I do not beleive in supporting the troops, I don't believe in kissing a dudes ass because he has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact, I more often then not mention that Halliburton and KBR thank them for their service, but I sure as $#@! do not.

So yes, the vast majority of people in nations, as I have written before, love their little wars and their men in pretty costumes going around slaughtering people in the name of a flag and empire.  And all those peopel deserve to have war, REAL WAR, brought back upon their heads.

Just because they are working in a factory, making tires or doing the accounting for their nation's war machine, doesn't make them any less guilty of murder in my view than the soldier they cheer on and give flowers to and maybe even $#@! because he looks so good in his sharp uniform and is "
defending the honor of the fatherland" or whatever other jingoistic nonsense.

It is a tragedy that people who oppose aggressive wars in their nations die with the guilty, just as it is a tragedy that soldiers must die defending their lands from aggressors.  This means I think Iraqi soldiers and Afghan fighter's lives are a more tragic loss of life than the victims of 9/11.  Because Americans deserve nothing less than hellfire.  The people of Afghanistan do not deserve the hellfire being rained down upon them, and the people fighting the americans are on the side of justice.  Not only that, but the fighters are sacrificing their lives to be sure the evil american empire does not swallow up their people.

There is some kind of reality disconnect, that if you support an injust war from your home or office, you do not deserve the hellfire coming to you.
You deserve it far more than the poor soldiers trying to repel the invasion of your cheerled little soldier boys.

I know this is going to shock the $#@! out of some of you, I see comments that ask incredulously "so America deserved 9/11?

Yeah, yeah they did.  Is the picture becoming any more clear yet?

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

Everyone realizes when they support, *"Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified"*

Those that support this, support Obama's Droning of innocent civilians, Madeline Albright's child collateral damage, droning of Americans accused by the US government of some sort of crime with out any legal process accept from a Hellfire missile, and as always, the people can be brought to the bidding of their LYING masters with any war. Just as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Krystal, Kagan, Anwar al-Aulaqi, Qaddafi, Gaza, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Baby's Milk factories, Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc, etc, etc.

You give government an inch... they will take a BILLION miles and they will reign terror and destroy for any reason.

----------


## RickyJ

> Starving a people to death is better than nuking them?  What would the effects of severe malnutrition be upon the populace for decades after?


It would take the blame off the USA and put it on the Japanese leadership and the people for not revolting against them. Of course starvation would not be the desired outcome, it would be their choice however.

----------


## UWDude

> Yes, I believe they were unnecessary.
> 
> I believe there were a lot of tactical blunders made.  Starting with our involvement in WWI,, had it not been for that and the League of Nations there would have been no WWII.


And your beliefs would have lost the war.  Japan would have regrouped and conquered China, probably India too.  And they would haev no problem firebombing American cities.  They had no problem razing Chinese ones.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> It's not hypocritical.  China did not attack Japan, therefore, the Chinese were innocent.  Japan attacked china, therefore the Japanese were guilty.  No hypocrisy.


It is hypocritical because this thread is centered on if whether or not dropping WMDs on innocent civilians can ever be justified.  Pericles argued that it was and then used those pictures in order to equate the Japanese as savages and in turn defend the bombing campaign.  Although the Japanese army committed atrocities against innocent civilians, that does not justify the atrocities committed against their own civilians that were carried out by the U.S. military and government.  

That was the point I was trying to make.

----------


## UWDude

> It would take the blame of the USA and put it on the Japanese leadership and the people for not revolting against them. Of course starvation would not be the goal, it would be their choice however.


The Japanese people and their leadership ALWAYS had the blame for EVERYTHING that happened in the war of the pacific.  This is simple.

----------


## erowe1

> And your beliefs would have lost the war.  Japan would have regrouped and conquered China, probably India too.  And they would haev no problem firebombing American cities.  They had no problem razing Chinese ones.


What possible motivation would they have for provoking America like that if we were minding our own business?

----------


## UWDude

> Everyone realizes when they support, *"Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified"*
> 
> Those that support this, support Obama's Droning of innocent civilians, Madeline Albright's child collateral damage, droning of Americans accused by the US government of some sort of crime with out any legal process accept from a Hellfire missile, and as always, the people can be brought to the bidding of their LYING masters with any war. Just as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Krystal, Kagan, Anwar al-Aulaqi, Qaddafi, Gaza, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Baby's Milk factories, Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> You give government an inch... they will take a BILLION miles and they will reign terror and destroy for any reason.


I support none of that.  Those are not the same situations as an Imperialist nation trying to conquer half of the world, and getting away with it brutally, for years.

----------


## Contumacious

> You are hallucinating. I don't know the first thing about WW2, and I've said nothing about it.


Familiarize yourself with the details then repost.

Americans are still  HUMAN SHIELDS :

In order to pay for the UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAR FDR imposed a TWO YEAR "VICTORY TAX" - aka, the withholding of tax at source - which the motherfuckers forgot to remove and which is still being collected .

And , of course, you "don't know the first thing about".

.

----------


## RickyJ

> The Japanese people and their leadership ALWAYS had the blame for EVERYTHING that happened in the war of the pacific.  This is simple.


No, the USA has the blame for dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan. The Japanese today probably hate us for this.

----------


## AuH20

> And I have already addressed that moral equivalency with the nazi school teacher vs liberty loving american soldier.
> 
> I mean, have you seen the glorification of American soldiers in American culture?  Every veterans day we get a load of B.S. about them from a large majority of the masses, and a large majority of corporations, both in their ads, and in their programs for vets.  We are told to "support the troops", and most people follow that nonsense blindly too.
> 
> I do not beleive in supporting the troops, I don't believe in kissing a dudes ass because he has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact, I more often then not mention that Halliburton and KBR thank them for their service, but I sure as $#@! do not.
> 
> So yes, the vast majority of people in nations, as I have written before, love their little wars and their men in pretty costumes going around slaughtering people in the name of a flag and empire.  And all those peopel deserve to have war, REAL WAR, brought back upon their heads.
> 
> Just because they are working in a factory, making tires or doing the accounting for their nation's war machine, doesn't make them any less guilty of murder in my view than the soldier they cheer on and give flowers to and maybe even $#@! because he looks so good in his sharp uniform and is "
> ...


Well said. We're all guilty as outlandish as it sounds.

----------


## UWDude

> What possible motivation would they have for provoking America like that if we were minding our own business?


Because the United states, as I already stated, had justifiably, as I already stated, cut off oil and scrap iron, so Japan could no longer just march around and burn all resistance to the ground, like they were doing.  The United states was not "minding its own business", and in my view, correct not to do so.  It was right of the United States to cut off oil and scrap metal.  It was right for the United states to join the war, even if rossevelt took his glvoes dsown and egged Japan to take the first swing, it was still right to fight in WW II.

I am getting awfully tired of repeating myself.

----------


## UWDude

> No, the USA has the blame for dropping two hydrogen bombs on Japan. The Japanese today probably hate us for this.


Watch _Barefoot Gen_, and listen to the father in the movie.  See who he blames for the atomic bombs.

It is a great movie.

----------


## AuH20

> What possible motivation would they have for provoking America like that if we were minding our own business?


Well, they gambled that if they could destroy a large portion of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, the Americans would slink back to the west coast. They lost that wager.

----------


## Pericles

> Everyone realizes when they support, *"Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified"*
> 
> Those that support this, support Obama's Droning of innocent civilians, Madeline Albright's child collateral damage, droning of Americans accused by the US government of some sort of crime with out any legal process accept from a Hellfire missile, and as always, the people can be brought to the bidding of their LYING masters with any war. Just as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Krystal, Kagan, Anwar al-Aulaqi, Qaddafi, Gaza, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Baby's Milk factories, Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> You give government an inch... they will take a BILLION miles and they will reign terror and destroy for any reason.


It is a poorly worded question - and that is the real issue. The use of chemical or bio weapons is accepted by treaty as a war crime (except of course, by anarchists who did not personally sign the agreement). So the discussion to the extent there is one is about nukes. The targeting of non combatants is also a war crime by treaty - so same as previous. 

So, the only real question is, if there is a valid target for a nuke, and non combatants get killed, what are the moral implications. Which I argue is no different than any other weapon.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Welll, because every devious propagandist equates these contemporary 'skirmishes' to WW2 when they are not even remotely comparable. The Ayatollah is not Adolph Hitler that could project power to the Atlantic Ocean as well North Africa and the Russian steppes. Last I checked, Iran hadn't absorbed surrounding nations. Graham, McCain and others are shameful liars.


Yeah, I'm not going to get involved in the WWII discussion or comparisons. I didn't make the statement, that was just my interpretation of it.

I'm just essentially applying what Gunny was espousing, because, like I said, I had a slightly different interpretation of the quote he was referring to than his own, and it did have to do with his response in a couple different ways. I wasn't trying to get any more involved than that.

----------


## Contumacious

> Because the United states, as I already stated, *had justifiably*, as I already stated, cut off oil and scrap iron, so Japan could no longer just march around and burn all resistance to the ground, like they were doing.


Only someone who is criminally insane would find as justifiable for FDR to order PRIVATE COMPANIES to seize assets and stop selling oil PRIOR to Pearl Harbor.

.

----------


## Pericles

> No, the USA has the blame for dropping two hydrogen bombs on Japan. The Japanese today probably hate us for this.


The H-bomb was not developed until 1950, and the Soviets built the first one, but go ahead.

----------


## UWDude

> It is hypocritical because this thread is centered on if whether or not dropping WMDs on innocent civilians can ever be justified.  Pericles argued that it was and then used those pictures in order to equate the Japanese as savages and in turn defend the bombing campaign.  Although the Japanese army committed atrocities against innocent civilians, that does not justify the atrocities committed against their own civilians that were carried out by the U.S. military and government.  
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make.


Actually, I beleive Pericles was posting those pictures in reply to someone trying to tug at heartstrings with pictures of the victims of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with captions asking, "what did these Japanese ever do to deserve this?"

Well, read a bti about Japanese culture, and how they sent their boys off to war, their unquestioning loyalty to their emperor, and their belief they would win, and were the superior race in Asia, to understand what they did to deserve it.

----------


## RickyJ

> Such a strategy would be cost prohibitive given the burdensome costs to feed, fuel and outfit a naval and ground force of that size. The supply lines were distant and difficult to maintain as well. Remember that the U.S. was technically broke at the time and barely scraped by on war bonds.


Japan was even in worse shape financially and had very limited resources. They only had a small supply of oil, it wouldn't have taken too long for that to run out. We aren't talking years here, maybe 12 to 18 months at the most.

----------


## Pericles

> Only someone who is criminally insane would find as justifiable for FDR to order PRIVATE COMPANIES to seize assets and stop selling oil PRIOR to Pearl Harbor.
> 
> .


But would it be OK after Pearl Harbor?  Why or why not?

----------


## UWDude

> Only someone who is criminally insane would find as justifiable for FDR to order PRIVATE COMPANIES to seize assets and stop selling oil PRIOR to Pearl Harbor.
> 
> .



_"Only someone who is criminally insane....."_

Stupid.

----------


## erowe1

> Because the United states, as I already stated, had justifiably, as I already stated, cut off oil and scrap iron, so Japan could no longer just march around and burn all resistance to the ground, like they were doing.  The United states was not "minding its own business", and in my view, correct not to do so.  It was right of the United States to cut off oil and scrap metal.  It was right for the United states to join the war, even if rossevelt took his glvoes dsown and egged Japan to take the first swing, it was still right to fight in WW II.
> 
> I am getting awfully tired of repeating myself.


It still makes no sense. I disagree that the regime in DC was right to bully us around that way. But even if they did, how could Japan possibly rationalize that the way to get Americans to sell them oil and iron would be by firebombing American cities?

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Well, read a bti about Japanese culture, and how they sent their boys off to war, their unquestioning loyalty to their emperor, and their belief they would win, and were the superior race in Asia, to understand what they did to deserve it.


That sounds awfully familiar to a certain country I know who treats its military like a sacred cow.  But $#@! the people who refuse to bow down.  Just as long as they are within the borders, they too deserve to be vaporized.

----------


## otherone

> There is some kind of reality disconnect, that if you support an injust war from your home or office, you do not deserve the hellfire coming to you.
> You deserve it far more than the poor soldiers trying to repel the invasion of your cheerled little soldier boys.


So those who oppose war within a given population deserve to die alongside those who do?  Or do imagine some sort of "smart bomb" that avoids the pacifists?  Your words actually bolster what you oppose...an all-powerful state capable of delivering hellfire.

----------


## RickyJ

> The H-bomb was not developed until 1950, and the Soviets built the first one, but go ahead.


OK, so it was uranium and plutonium bombs.

----------


## UWDude

> Japan was even in worse shape financially and had very limited resources. They only had a small supply of oil, it wouldn't have taken too long for that to run out. We aren't talking years here, maybe 12 to 18 months at the most.


Why should ONE more American soldier have to die for the crimes of Japan?  Why are American soldiers' lives worth less than those of the Japanese people?  What did the Japanese people do to deserve living, and to sentence more American boys to death, for the Japanese people's dreams of empire and racial superiority? 

Already 80,000 Americans were killed fighting the evil Japanese.  And make no mistake about it.  The people of Java and Korea hated their colonizers in history, but none more so thatn, as the Koreans say almost every time, the "wicked Japanese".  It became cultural, because the Japanese were so barbaric, and so inhuman to the peoples they conquered.  Any resistance was met with razings, executions, and mass rapes. And this is not just propaganda, it is the truth.

So I don;t see why I should care about the lives of the people who cheered this behavior on, more than I should care about the lives of the people risking their lives to stop the madness of the Japanese empire.  In fact, yes, I care far more, and am happier that the lives of Americans were save din this instance, over the lives of Japanese.  The Japanese people deserved the death, because they had inflicted so much upon the world.

You reap what you sew.

----------


## erowe1

> So I don;t see why I should care about the lives of the people who cheered this behavior on


Little babies cheered that behavior on?

----------


## Pericles

> Why should ONE more American soldier have to die for the crimes of Japan?  Why are American soldiers' lives worth less than those of the Japanese people?  What did the Japanese people do to deserve living, and to sentence more American boys to death, for the Japanese people's dreams of empire and racial superiority? 
> 
> Already 80,000 Americans were killed fighting the evil Japanese.  And make no mistake about it.  The people of Java and Korea hated their colonizers in history, but none more so thatn, as the Koreans say almost every time, the "wicked Japanese".  It became cultural, because the Japanese were so barbaric, and so inhuman to the peoples they conquered.  Any resistance was met with razings, executions, and mass rapes. And this is not just propaganda, it is the truth.
> 
> So I don;t see why I should care about the lives of the people who cheered this behavior on, more than I should care about the lives of the people risking their lives to stop the madness of the Japanese empire.  In fact, yes, I care far more, and am happier that the lives of Americans were save din this instance, over the lives of Japanese.  The Japanese people deserved the death, because they had inflicted so much upon the world.
> 
> You reap what you sew.


On RPF, that is called blowback. And that is what Japan got.

----------


## Cabal

Ignore function is highly recommended for morally bankrupt, logically inconsistent armchair executioners who apologize on behalf of their beloved State for mass murder.

----------


## RickyJ

> Because the United states, as I already stated, had justifiably, as I already stated, cut off oil and scrap iron, so Japan could no longer just march around and burn all resistance to the ground, like they were doing.  The United states was not "minding its own business", and in my view, correct not to do so.  It was right of the United States to cut off oil and scrap metal.  It was right for the United states to join the war, even if rossevelt took his glvoes dsown and egged Japan to take the first swing, it was still right to fight in WW II.
> 
> I am getting awfully tired of repeating myself.


But was it right to know ahead of time they were going to attack Pearl Harbor and do nothing to warn them about it? That  is called treason, and if it was ever widely known at the time this would have led to Roosevelt being executed as a traitor.

----------


## AuH20

> Why should ONE more American soldier have to die for the crimes of Japan?  Why are American soldiers' lives worth less than those of the Japanese people?  What did the Japanese people do to deserve living, and to sentence more American boys to death, for the Japanese people's dreams of empire and racial superiority? 
> 
> Already 80,000 Americans were killed fighting the evil Japanese.  And make no mistake about it.  The people of Java and Korea hated their colonizers in history, but none more so thatn, as the Koreans say almost every time, the "wicked Japanese".  It became cultural, because the Japanese were so barbaric, and so inhuman to the peoples they conquered.  Any resistance was met with razings, executions, and mass rapes. And this is not just propaganda, it is the truth.
> 
> So I don;t see why I should care about the lives of the people who cheered this behavior on, more than I should care about the lives of the people risking their lives to stop the madness of the Japanese empire.  In fact, yes, I care far more, and am happier that the lives of Americans were save din this instance, over the lives of Japanese.  The Japanese people deserved the death, because they had inflicted so much upon the world.
> 
> You reap what you sew.


My perspective is this. With Operation Downfall and Operation Olympic rearing to go, I don't condemn Truman for arriving at the difficult decision he did. That's not to say I don't have regard for the lives of Japanese civilians, but you protect those who brought you to the dance so to speak. So sending a couple hundred thousand U.S. GIs into a veritable meat grinder in order to satisfy some sense of artificial guilt against a truly wicked people is not my idea of justice.

----------


## UWDude

> That sounds awfully familiar to a certain country I know who treats its military like a sacred cow.  But $#@! the people who refuse to bow down.  Just as long as they are within the borders, they too deserve to be vaporized.





> So those who oppose war within a given population deserve to die alongside those who do?  Or do imagine some sort of "smart bomb" that avoids the pacifists?  Your words actually bolster what you oppose...an all-powerful state capable of delivering hellfire.


Jesus christ.  I have already explained this a few posts up, and neither of you are even recognizing you read the posts, instead you are both coming at me with arguments I already addressed.

First for NIU Studet for Liberty, from this post, only a few posts above yours....




> I mean, have you seen the glorification of American soldiers in American culture? Every veterans day we get a load of B.S. about them from a large majority of the masses, and a large majority of corporations, both in their ads, and in their programs for vets. We are told to "support the troops", and most people follow that nonsense blindly too.
> 
> I know this is going to shock the $#@! out of some of you, I see comments that ask incredulously "so America deserved 9/11?
> 
> Yeah, yeah they did. Is the picture becoming any more clear yet?


And this is trying, because I also addressed, multiple times now, the moral equivalency of a soldier fighting an aggressive nation to the detractor within the innocent nation.  But that would require you reading other people's posts, and obviously you are here to talk at people, and not with them.

So read my posts before trying to argue with me anymore, or don't expect me to keep repeating myself for the three or four of you who can not even address my points, but instead keep repeating things already said, and responded to, in this thread.

----------


## erowe1

> a truly wicked people


Who exactly do you mean by this phrase?

Just anybody who occupied space in a certain region of the planet?

----------


## Seraphim

The Japanese bombed a NAVAL base. It was a military move.

The US bombed CIVILIAN cities. 

The US should have nuked military outposts into oblivion. 

*By your logic Middle Eastern militants were justified in the 9/11 attacks.*

How dem apples?

Get your head out of your ass.

When a military attacks you, you attack the MILITARY. 

*Not the $#@!ing women and children.*

Unreal...

You just justified one of the most Satanic/evil military strikes in world history.




> I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans.  Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately.  If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.

----------


## UWDude

> Little babies cheered that behavior on?


American soldiers cheered Japanese behavior on?  Because they died too.

And American soldiers were Heros who had to die.  Babies were just people who existed.
In my mind, the greater tragedy is the man killed, who was willing to give everything he had to, to stop evil, than the baby who died for being in the wrong country and having the wrong parents.

----------


## UWDude

> *By your logic Middle Eastern militants were justified in the 9/11 attacks.*


Read two posts above yours.

unreal....

TWO $#@!ING POSTS above yours, and it is still obvious you are one of those forum $#@!s that likes to spew his $#@!, but not read what others are saying.

TWO $#@!ING POSTS.

----------


## Pericles

> The Japanese bombed a NAVAL base. It was a military move.
> 
> The US bombed CIVILIAN cities. 
> 
> The US should have nuked military outposts into oblivion. 
> 
> *By your logic Middle Eastern militants were justified in the 9/11 attacks.*
> 
> How dem apples?
> ...


63 civilians were killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

----------


## otherone

> I mean, have you seen the glorification of American soldiers in American culture?  Every veterans day we get a load of B.S. about them from a large majority of the masses, and a large majority of corporations, both in their ads, and in their programs for vets.  We are told to "support the troops", and most people follow that nonsense blindly too.


Understand the source of that martial culture is actually "kulture"  state propaganda, created by those same criminal enterprises that appeal to fear and nationalism in order to justify itself.   You've fallen for the propaganda yourself, friend.  Warmongers rely on collectivism to thrive.  Whenever _anyone's_ Rights are trampled for the supposed good of the group, Liberty is the victim.   Just because you wish to kill civilians does not give you the authority to compel me to kill them.

----------


## UWDude

> Who exactly do you mean by this phrase?
> 
> Just anybody who occupied space in a certain region of the planet?


No, just the peopel who supported their government and its war of aggression en masse.

----------


## erowe1

> American soldiers cheered Japanese behavior on?  Because they died too.


You're the one who said their death was justified for cheering that behavior on. Not me. Are you taking it back now?

----------


## UWDude

> Understand the source of that martial culture is actually "kulture"  state propaganda, created by those same criminal enterprises that appeal to fear and nationalism in order to justify itself.   You've fallen for the propaganda yourself, friend.  Warmongers rely on collectivism to thrive.  Whenever _anyone's_ Rights are trampled for the supposed good of the group, Liberty is the victim.   Just because you wish to kill civilians does not give you the authority to compel me to kill them.


I'm not a warmonger.  But I am also not an idealist pacifist that believes wars should have rules and other such nonsense.
That is why I object to the aggressor nation in almost every war in history.

----------


## AuH20

> Who exactly do you mean by this phrase?
> 
> Just anybody who occupied space in a certain region of the planet?


The Japanese people had to be completely asleep to not have heard what was transpiring in the outer territories.

----------


## DamianTV

Why is no one talking about the Elephant in the Room?

How about US companies like "Standard Oil" who got busted profiting by supplying the militaries on BOTH sides of the war?  Companies like that who owned Senators and Congressmen, who instated the Sanctions against Japan in the first place?  Now, more importantly, although Standard Oil in the day got caught, what about the other big companies that did NOT get caught?  Like those that owned the Central Banks?  The Bilderberger Group has been around for a long long time, even if the names have changed.

It is absolutely no different than what we are doing today against Iran.  Our Govt is doing everything in its power to provoke Iran to attack us, that way, the people can clearly identify the Enemy as Iran while ignoring the fact that we are provoking them.  Our Govt WANTS a War with Iran, and they are putting every possible contingency in place to make it happen.  Fearmongering: Check.  Sanctions so they attack us first: Check.  WMD's: Check.  Propoganda: Check.  Think this was any different in the 20th century?

----------


## UWDude

> You're the one who said their death was justified for cheering that behavior on. Not me. Are you taking it back now?


No, I am making a point that has obviously gone over your head five times now.

Why is a Japanese civilian's life worth more than an American soldier's life?

Do you get it yet?

----------


## erowe1

> No, just the peopel who supported their government and its war of aggression en masse.


I was with you until you got to "en masse." Are individuals guilty for what they do as individuals? Or does simply being a subject of a certain regime make you guilty of what some other subjects of that regime did?

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> I support none of that.  Those are not the same situations as an Imperialist nation trying to conquer half of the world, and getting away with it brutally, for years.


Maybe first you should realize who the "Imperialist Nation" is and what provokes nations.

Doesn't matter the nation, it's the current regime in power, the charlatans that fool the masses, that when they commit acts of aggression(including sanctions, which is another act of war) it is the government, not the people. Washington DC doesn't represent the people as their number one priority, they represent the trust.

If the trust wants oil, if the trust desires sanctions, if special interest needs an objective, it's through corruption and racketeering of politicians... Marketing and Sales can sell ANY KILLING or ANY race, creed, color, persuasion, religion,  to John Q. Public. Japan through sanction and attacking China(acts of war) has done nothing different than the Washington DC doing to this very day across the globe. 

Almost all these wars are based on lies, and the history is there to prove it. BTW, The killing machines, brutal atrocities, is brought on by the governments in their nationalistic politicizing, training, and brainwashing the average Joe or ToJo. 

90 percent of the populations are fooled by the lies/oppression of Regimes and Government in control, their ignorance shouldn't be their death sentence. The only people that got it correct in WWII were the German Valkyrie Coup. You sever the head of the monster, not carpet bomb 100,000s Dresden or Tokyo civilians with incendiaries burning them to death to make a statement.

Brutality goes both ways... next you'll be justifying atomic bombs are humane because they instantaneously vaporizes 10,000s of civilians and they suffer much less than Incendiaries that burn you alive. The broad game is called "RISK" for a reason.

----------


## erowe1

> No, I am making a point that has obviously gone over your head five times now.
> 
> Why is a Japanese civilians life worth more than an American soldier's life?
> 
> Do you get it yet?


No, I don't. I have never said anything about the value of American soldiers' lives. Nor have any of my replies to you been about anything you said about American soldiers' lives.

----------


## Contumacious

> But would it be OK after Pearl Harbor?  Why or why not?


Knowing now that FDR purposely provoked the attack I would have to say no.

And before you claim that FDR was a saint,  look how *LBJ attempted to sink the USS Liberty so that he could blame Egypt.*

.

----------


## erowe1

> The Japanese people had to be completely asleep to not have heard what was transpiring in the outer territories.


What is "the Japanese people"? You mean just what I said right? It's anybody who occupies space in a certain part of the world? Their being where they were was what made them "truly wicked"?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> So if some maniac decided to tell a guy that his whole city will be nuked unless he murders your children with an axe, you would argue that the moral thing to do is to murder your innocent children?


As a member of RPF, I am obliged by Site Policy to answer that the moral thing is whatever Ron Paul would do. What would Ron Paul do?

Thank you for asking such a thought-provoking question.

----------


## RickyJ

> Maybe first you should realize who the "Imperialist Nation" is and what provokes nations.
> 
> Doesn't matter the nation, it's the current regime in power, the charlatans that fool the masses, that when they commit acts of aggression(including sanctions, which is another act of war) it is the government, not the people. Washington DC doesn't represent the people as their number one priority, they represent the trust.
> 
> If the trust wants oil, if the trust desires sanctions, if special interest needs an objective, it's through corruption and racketeering of politicians... Marketing and Sales can sell ANY KILLING or ANY race, creed, color, persuasion, religion,  to John Q. Public. Japan through sanction and attacking China(acts of war) has done nothing different than the Washington DC doing to this very day across the globe. 
> 
> Almost all these wars are based on lies, and the history is there to prove it. BTW, The killing machines, brutal atrocities, is brought on by the governments in their nationalistic politicizing, training, and brainwashing the average Joe or ToJo. 
> 
> 90 percent of the populations are fooled by the lies/oppression of Regimes and Government in control, their ignorance shouldn't be their death sentence. The only people that got it correct in WWII were the German Valkyrie Coup. You sever the head of the monster, not carpet bomb 100,000s Dresden or Tokyo civilians with incendiaries burning them to death to make a statement.
> ...


Yes most wars are started by lies. Germany in attacking Poland was only doing so because the Polish were massacring Germans living there. The lie is that Germany was totally unprovoked and attacked Poland for no reason other than they wanted to rule the world.

----------


## UWDude

> I was with you until you got to "en masse." Are individuals guilty for what they do as individuals? Or does simply being a subject of a certain regime make you guilty of what some other subjects of that regime did?


Like $#@! you were with me.  You obviously are not reading what I am writing.  Because I have already addressed the moral equivalency of aggressive empires, and the soldiers fighting the aggressive empires as being equally tragic, but necessary.

So, how about you read my posts before asking your already asked and addressed questions.  In fact, I think I have already asked you to do this before, so now I must be falling into some time space warp paradigm because you obviously are reading nothing that I write, and just keep spewing your one line lawyer gotcha questions as if I have not already addressed your points.

----------


## UWDude

> No, I don't. I have never said anything about the value of American soldiers' lives. Nor have any of my replies to you been about anything you said about American soldiers' lives.


Well, that's the sixth time it has gone over your head.

----------


## Pericles

> Knowing now the FDR purposely provoked the attack I would have to say no.
> 
> And before you claim that FDR was a saint,  look how *LBJ attempted to sink the USS Liberty so that he could blame Egypt.*
> 
> .


Does declaring war give the government the right to prohibit private transactions? Recalling your position that no such right existed before the attack on Pearl Harbor......

----------


## erowe1

> Like $#@! you were with me.  You obviously are not reading what I am writing.  Because I have already addressed the moral equivalency of aggressive empires, and the soldiers fighting the aggressive empires as being equally tragic, but necessary.
> 
> So, how about you read my posts before asking your already asked and addressed questions.  In fact, I think I have already asked you to do this before, so now I must be falling into some time space warp paradigm because you obviously are reading nothing that I write, and just keep spewing your one line lawyer gotcha questions as if I have not already addressed your points.


I haven't said anything about moral equivalency.

And I don't think you are addressing my questions. You seem not to want to. Your reply here, for example, includes nothing to answer what I was asking in the one you're supposedly replying to. As I look through your posts, this is typical.

----------


## Seraphim

I know that. Collateral damage. Not a systematic attempt to do so.

Next; THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY DOING IT.

Fight evil....with...Evil?




> 63 civilians were killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

----------


## Pericles

> I know that. Collateral damage.


  Sucks to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, that's the sixth time it has gone over your head.


If you think you're making a point that has something to do with something I said, and nobody else can see any relevance to the conversation in the words you use, then it's possible that the fault is not mine.

----------


## UWDude

> 90 percent of the populations are fooled by the lies/oppression of Regimes and Government in control, their ignorance shouldn't be their death sentence.


Sure, in happy fairy tale land, where ignorance and vanity are not death sentences.  But in the real world, you go around cheering on the mass murder of people on other countries while you take those people's wealth and spend it, and tell each other you are the best people in the world.....  .....you deserve what is coming to you.

...and yes, I know this sounds an awful lot like a certain other nation with red and white on its flag too... ...but I have already sad that many time.




> next you'll be justifying atomic bombs are humane because they instantaneously vaporizes 10,000s of civilians and they suffer much less than Incendiaries that burn you alive. The broad game is called "RISK" for a reason.


"next you'll be......"

Next I won't be talking to anybody who is going to quote what I'll say in the future, (as in, putting words in my mouth using an internet troll cliche format) when I have already said plenty in this thread.

----------


## UWDude

> If you think you're making a point that has something to do with something I said, and nobody else can see any relevance to the conversation in the words you use, then it's possible that the fault is not mine.


The fault is yours, no doubt about it.

----------


## Seraphim

I read it.

The problem is that you are wrong.

Insurgents in the middle east should be fighting their enemy. FOREIGN MILITARY.

Not civilians.

Regarless of which side does it, civilian murder is BARBARIC and down right evil.

Inside job or not, the perpetrators of 9/11 are going deep, deep into the pits of hell.

*Blow back is not moral justification for murdering civilians.*




> Read two posts above yours.
> 
> unreal....
> 
> TWO $#@!ING POSTS above yours, and it is still obvious you are one of those forum $#@!s that likes to spew his $#@!, but not read what others are saying.
> 
> TWO $#@!ING POSTS.

----------


## DamianTV

Why do all countries go to war in the first place?

(The question implies ALL acts of War.  Provocation.  Responses of Sanctions.  Financial War.  Military War.  ALL form of war.  WHy do countries go to war to begin with?)

----------


## erowe1

> The fault is yours, no doubt about it.


So, the logic that's going over my head goes like this then.

1) Japanese civilians' lives are just as valuable as American soldiers'.
2) Therefore, all Japanese civilians deserved to die.

I agree with you about the fact that you've repeated this same argument many times. It's the logic behind it that I don't accept. You could just as easily argue that all red-headed step-children deserve to die.

----------


## UWDude

> I read it.


Oh, good for you!

Next time try reading the thread _before_ posting your replies!

As to your other point... ..good luck winning a war by only attacking the invaders inside your borders.  
That is a recipe for disaster.  To destroy an enemy, you must destroy its will to fight.  To destroy its will to fight, you must destroy its civilians, until they realize that war is not a television show, or interesting read in the newspaper, and that war is only fun when your side is winning.

The civilians must be taught, in the most real and deadly of terms, and in the most real of experiences, that war is an epic natural disaster of tragedy, not something to watch on a newsreel before a moving picture show.

----------


## Contumacious

> Does declaring war give the government the right to prohibit private transactions? Recalling your position that no such right existed before the attack on Pearl Harbor......


Does *VALIDLY* declaring war? 

Yes.

.

----------


## RickyJ

> I know this is going to shock the $#@! out of some of you, I see comments that ask incredulously "so America deserved 9/11?
> 
> Yeah, yeah they did.* Is the picture becoming any more clear yet?*


Hell no Americans did not deserve 9/11! 

Yes, the picture is very clear, you are crazy!

9/11 was an inside job meant to start wars in the Middle East and to take away our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It was planned and carried out by foreign agents and dual national citizens in the highest levels of power in the Pentagon, Air Force, and the Bush administration. Americans did not deserve neither 9/11 nor Pearl Harbor! Any fool that says otherwise can get their ass to their beloved Israel!

----------


## UWDude

> So, the logic that's going over my head goes like this then.
> 
> 1) Japanese civilians' lives are just as valuable as American soldiers'.
> 2) Therefore, all Japanese civilians deserved to die.
> 
> I agree with you about the fact that you've repeated this same argument many times. It's the logic behind it that I don't accept. You could just as easily argue that all red-headed step-children deserve to die.


1) Nope, you got it wrong.  An American soldier's life is worth MORE than a Japanese civilian.  Because the Japanese civilian is helping the Japanese soldier commit the atrocities of war.

2)  got that one wrong, too.  Not _all_ Japanese civilians deserve to die.  The _detractors'_ lives are just as a tragic loss as the lives of the soldiers fighting the nation of Japan.

----------


## UWDude

> Hell no Americans did not deserve 9/11! 
> 
> Yes, the picture is very clear, you are crazy!
> 
> 9/11 was an inside job meant to start wars in the Middle East and to take away our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It was planned and carried out by foreign agents and dual national citizens in the highest levels of power in the Pentagon, Air Force, and the Bush administration. Americans did not deserve neither 9/11 or Pearl Harbor! Any fool that says otherwise can get their ass to their beloved Israel!


Inside job or not, America deserves a hell of a lot more hellfire than it gets.

----------


## otherone

> I'm not a warmonger.  But I am also not an idealist pacifist that believes wars should have rules and other such nonsense.
> That is why I object to the aggressor nation in almost every war in history.


Your objection is duly noted.  Also noted is your rationale to have a kick-ass, state-of-the-art, death-from-above, bloated violent state of our own to make those bad ol' aggressor governments (and populaces) PAY for their atrocities (which sounds kinda like what der Fuhrer said to come to power, btw) .  So, rob me and my neighbors to pay for this $#@!, take my children through force or coercion to die for this $#@!, just so's UWDude's objection is rained down upon the objects of his consternation.

----------


## erowe1

> 1) Nope, you got it wrong.  An American soldier's life is worth MORE than a Japanese civilian.  Because the Japanese civilian is helping the Japanese soldier commit the atrocities of war.
> 
> 2)  got that one wrong, too.  Not _all_ Japanese civilians deserve to die.  The _detractors'_ lives are just as a tragic loss as the lives of the soldiers fighting the nation of Japan.


Do you see how what you say in point 2 contradicts what you say in point 1?

----------


## Seraphim

Everything you wrote is wrong.

To win a war you bankrupt the enemy. Something that is occuring very much by simply fighting on home soil (in the Middle East).

Economic hardship does everything you mentioned without directly murdering civilians.




> Oh, good for you!
> 
> Next time try reading the thread _before_ posting your replies!
> 
> As to your other point... ..good luck winning a war by only attacking the invaders inside your borders.  
> That is a recipe for disaster.  To destroy an enemy, you must destroy its will to fight.  To destroy its will to fight, you must destroy its civilians, until they realize that war is not a television show, or interesting read in the newspaper, and that war is only fun when your side is winning.
> 
> The civilians must be taught, in the most real and deadly of terms, and in the most real of experiences, that war is an epic natural disaster of tragedy, not something to watch on a newsreel before a moving picture show.

----------


## amy31416

> I agree, and have said as much.  That doesn't mean AuH2O supports John McCain's and Lindsey Graham's foreign policy.  That's just rhetorical bull$#@! intended to bypass reason and truth and evoke an emotional response that is, in all truth, contrary to his widely known actual position on Lindsay and McFake.


He thinks that the prisoners in Gitmo should be murdered.

He thinks it's okay to murder civilians.

McCain and Graham do as well.

What are you defending here, Gunny?

----------


## Pericles

> Why do all countries go to war in the first place?
> 
> (The question implies ALL acts of War.  Provocation.  Responses of Sanctions.  Financial War.  Military War.  ALL form of war.  WHy do countries go to war to begin with?)


If I want something, I have two realistic options - work for it or steal it (I might get it as a gift from the good fairy, but wouldn't count on it). If threat of or use of force appears to be the easier of the two .....

----------


## UWDude

> Do you see how what you say in point 2 contradicts what you say in point 1?


No, point two clarified it.

----------


## Cabal

> Why do all countries go to war in the first place?
> 
> (The question implies ALL acts of War.  Provocation.  Responses of Sanctions.  Financial War.  Military War.  ALL form of war.  WHy do countries go to war to begin with?)


In general, war is the health of the State--see the "ratchet effect". A bit more specifically, territorial control, resources and economic incentives, power plays/posturing, domestic expansion.

----------


## erowe1

> He thinks that the prisoners in Gitmo should be murdered.
> 
> He thinks it's okay to murder civilians.
> 
> McCain and Graham do as well.
> 
> What are you defending here, Gunny?


But McCain and Graham are better on immigration than AuH2O is.

----------


## Seraphim

You're an idiot.

There are people within the USA selling out it's country and doing evil.

To utilize their actions and influence as a means to prosecute an entire nation, innocents and all, is exhibit A in either 1) retardation 2) severe misguidedness or 3) evil.




> Inside job or not, America deserves a hell of a lot more hellfire than it gets.

----------


## UWDude

> Everything you wrote is wrong.
> 
> To win a war you bankrupt the enemy. Something that is occuring very much by simply fighting on home soil (in the Middle East).
> 
> Economic hardship does everything you mentioned without directly murdering civilians.


Not true.  People will fight on through great economic hardship.

Only in your face bloodshed and torment, and straight, brutal force can make people stop doing evil sometimes.  That is it.  Period.  Nothing else will do.

----------


## UWDude

> You're an idiot.


Nut uh, dude!

----------


## Seraphim

Yes, yes it does.

I do not mean to justify their death - not in the least. War is hell on Earth. But bombing a naval base and accidently killing some civilians is a whole different ballgame to consciously detonating NUCLEAR bombs in the middle of metropolitan cities that contain NOTHING BUT civilians.

63 "accidental" deaths vs hundreds of thousands of purposeful ones and millions of nuclear contaminated individuals thereafter.




> Sucks to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

----------


## UWDude

> Your objection is duly noted.  Also noted is your rationale to have a kick-ass, state-of-the-art, death-from-above, bloated violent state of our own to make those bad ol' aggressor governments (and populaces) PAY for their atrocities (which sounds kinda like what der Fuhrer said to come to power, btw) .  So, rob me and my neighbors to pay for this $#@!, take my children through force or coercion to die for this $#@!, just so's UWDude's objection is rained down upon the objects of his consternation.


I would too (rob neighbors to pay for WW II, and institute the draft to make people fight in it).  I do not object to the draft in all cases.  I do not object to atomic weapons in all cases.  I do not object to chemical weapons in all cases.  I do not even object to torture in all cases.  I am not a pacifist, and I believe that peoples who start wars deserve to be punished in the very real way war is a punishment all its own... ....when it comes time for those who start the wars to pay the piper.

----------


## otherone

> In general, war is the health of the State--see the "ratchet effect". A bit more specifically, territorial control, resources and economic incentives, power plays/posturing, domestic expansion.


Leviathan is a living monster, as it is composed of people.  It needs to be fed, and when fed it grows.  War is a growth phase, like a snake shedding it's skin....

----------


## UWDude

> Leviathan is a living monster, as it is composed of people.  It needs to be fed, and when fed it grows.  War is a growth phase, like a snake shedding it's skin....


But please don't kill the people feeding the monster!  That's immoral!

----------


## otherone

> I would too.  I do not object to the draft in all cases.  I do not object to atomic weapons in all cases.  I do not object to chemical weapons in all cases.  I do not even object to torture in all cases.  I am not a pacifist, and I believe that peoples who start wars deserve to be punished in the very real way war is a punishment all its own... ....when it comes time for those who start the wars to pay the piper.


Do you have stock in Haliburton?  Or are interviewing for a spokesman job there?  Or is this actually McCain trollin' the RPF?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> He thinks that the prisoners in Gitmo should be murdered.
> 
> He thinks it's okay to murder civilians.
> 
> McCain and Graham do as well.
> 
> What are you defending here, Gunny?


I am defending the fact that it's wrong to lie in order to color your opponent with positions they do not hold, even if you disagree with them on EVERYTHING.  Lying is still lying.  The people who disagreed with Ron Paul about everything lied about him in order to paint him as something he wasn't.  It was wrong when they did it to him, and it would be wrong for US to do the same thing to John McCain himself, no matter how much we hate him.

Truth is truth, and when we are willing to abandon integrity in order to 'promote liberty' then we have already lost, and there is no sense in even trying.

See, in your post there you are trying to make it look like *I* am somehow defending (by extension) the murder of GITMO prisoners.  Do you really believe that I think that way or are you just using a rhetorical device to falsely paint someone you disagree with with disgusting positions they do not hold?

In your post there you are trying to make it look like *I* am somehow defending (by extension) the murder of civilians.  Do you really believe that I think that way or are you just using a rhetorical device to falsely paint someone you disagree with with disgusting positions they do not hold?

In your post there you are trying to make it look like *I* am somehow defending (by extension) an alleged collusion with the methodology of McCain and Graham.  Do you really believe that I think that way or are you just using a rhetorical device to falsely paint someone you disagree with with disgusting positions they do not hold?

It's called integrity, and it doesn't go out the window just because you disagree with someone or don't like them.  If we are going to abandon integrity, then we may as well abandon the fight to restore liberty, because without integrity we will fail, and even if we somehow manage to win, then without integrity we will be right back in tyranny not ten years later.

----------


## otherone

> But please don't kill the people feeding the monster!  That's immoral!


_YOU_ ARE _THOSE_ PEOPLE.  ARE YOU BLIND?????????????

----------


## UWDude

> Do you have stock in Haliburton?  Or are interviewing for a spokesman job there?  Or is this actually McCain trollin' the RPF?


Are we talking about WW II or the Iraq war.....

because those were two incredibly different wars and situations, weren't they?

----------


## Seraphim

Most of the people (civilians) feeding Leviathan are IGNORANT. 

*Ignorance is not to be condemned to death by ANY mortal.*




> But please don't kill the people feeding the monster!  That's immoral!

----------


## otherone

> Are we talking about WW II or the Iraq war.....
> 
> because those were two incredibly different wars and situations, weren't they?


In order for any of the military processes that you favor (nuclear, chemical, torture, etc.) to be employed, there needs to be companies to produce them; a strong, military industrial complex.  How can we react to international villainy if we are not prepared?

----------


## Cabal

Just a friendly reminder, the report function is located on the left hand bottom side of a post, marked by an exclamation point within a triangle, just to the right of the reputation function which can also be used to deduct from reputation, for good measure.

----------


## UWDude

> Most of the people (civlians) feeding Leviathan are IGNORANT. 
> 
> *Ignorance is not to be condemned to death by ANY mortal.*


Well hurrah for happy fairy tale land!

And walking into traffic without looking should not be a death sentence, but it often is.

And eating too many cheeseburgers should nto be a death sentence, but it often is.

And we can be told by happy fairy tale people that these things should not be death sentences, and that the people who died because of them did not deserve it...


...but really, if you eat a pound of bacon every day, do you really not deserve to die of a heart attack just because you feed stray puppies?

No, you still DESERVE to die of a heart attack.

And the people of Japan, every single one who supported the war in any way, be it a girl giving a soldier a necklace of flowers, or Tojo himself, deserved death.

Those who did not get it should be thankful to the mercy of their fellow human beings for forgiving them after the war for what they brought upon the world.

----------


## pcosmar

> Are we talking about WW II or the Iraq war.....
> 
> because those were two incredibly different wars and situations, weren't they?


No, We are talking about using Weapons of Mass destruction (Nukes or any other) against civilian populations.

Not military targets. *Civilian population centers.*

It does not matter what war or who does it.

----------


## UWDude

> In order for any of the military processes that you favor (nuclear, chemical, torture, etc.) to be employed, there needs to be companies to produce them; a strong, military industrial complex.  How can we react to international villainy if we are not prepared?


What does Ron Paul think about a strong defense?

I know huh?

Yes, I believe in a strong military.  Shocker, I know, since I also said I believe that the fighters in Afghanistan are heros, and the American soldiers in Afghanistan are tools of Halliburton and KBR.

But, if you want to, you can figure out the moral position.

War is real.  War has no rules.  War happens, and you should always be prepared for it.

----------


## Seraphim

None of this is relevent.

A person choosing to eat unhealthy is a terrible comparison to murdering civilians.

Knowing that civilian murder is evil should not be confused with believing in lollipop land.




> Well hurrah for happy fairy tale land!
> 
> And walking into traffic without looking should not be a death sentence, but it often is.
> 
> And eating too many cheeseburgers should nto be a death sentence, but it often is.
> 
> And we can be told by happy fairy tale people that these things should not be death sentences, and that the people who died because of them did not deserve it...
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## UWDude

> No, We are talking about using Weapons of Mass destruction (Nukes or any other) against civilian populations.
> 
> Not military targets. *Civilian population centers.*
> 
> It does not matter what war or who does it.


As I have said many times, a nation does not go to war without the consent of its population.

As I have said many times, you must show that population what war truly is, to make them understand that war is not fun.

The Japanese in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were convinced of victory, and still loving their emperor and soldiers.
They were shown how dreadfully wrong and evil they were.

----------


## pcosmar

> What does Ron Paul think about a strong defense?


Murdering Civilians  (state slaves) is not self defense.

----------


## pcosmar

> As I have said many times, a nation does not go to war without the consent of its population.


Bull$#@!,, it goes to war when the dictator says it goes to war.

Wilson was elected to keep us out of the war,, and he took us there anyway.
And vigorously prosecuted any dissent. 

Bull$#@!,, Power mad megalomaniacs start and run wars,, not the people.

----------


## UWDude

> None of this is relevent.
> 
> A person choosing to eat unhealthy is a terrible comparison to murdering civilians.
> 
> Knowing that civilian murder is evil should not be confused with believing in lollipop land.


You missed the point.  

If you do something stupid, over and over again, you deserve what you get.

If you go around the world, for years, and murder for glory and empire, you deserve the zinger in your neck, or the shrapnel in your spine.

Likewise, if you support your troops, and your nation, and its bloody aggressive wars, for years, and wave your little flag really hard and pride yourself for being a patriot, be it a flag with a red circle or red stripes, you deserve to taste what war is.  War is death.  And if you support it for any reason but a just reason, you deserve to receive what your actions have brought upon the world.

----------


## otherone

> What does Ron Paul think about a strong defense?
> 
> I know huh?


No.  No you don't.  You might want to look up "defense" and then look up what Ron Paul says about the military.  Pretty much the words "constitution" and "navy" are used.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Most of the people (civilians) feeding Leviathan are IGNORANT. 
> 
> *Ignorance is not to be condemned to death by ANY mortal.*


So the moral people should stand down, leaving immoral people free to gain dominance through the utilization of human shields. This morality sows the seeds for its own extermination; it invites counter-moralities to prevail. Curious morality, which fosters the opposite morality.

----------


## UWDude

> Bull$#@!,, it goes to war when the dictator says it goes to war.


Dictators manufacture consent first.

My moral position comes from the fact that the civilians of Germany were just as guilty as Hitler himself.   And they were.  The only ones who weren't were the ones who fled or objected.  

But there were freaking Jews at Hitler's night rallies.  That is how strong the religion of nationalism can be.

Am I supposed to pity and feel bad when these fools are exterminated for their vanity and nationalism?

Hell no.  War has consequences, and people must suffer those consequences, no matter what line of bull they were sold.  If they buy it, they deserve the consequences.

----------


## Pericles

> Murdering Civilians  (state slaves) is not self defense.


And one of the points of 4GW theory is that it is counterproductive. The justification used for mass bomber attacks in WWII was to break the will of the enemy population. They had the opposite effect - people got mad at being targeted. Germany reached peak industrial production in October of 1944, which annoyed the authors of the Strategic Bombing Survey, who set out to demonstrate how air power won WWII.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Just a friendly reminder, the report function is located on the left hand bottom side of a post, marked by an exclamation point within a triangle, just to the right of the reputation function which can also be used to deduct from reputation, for good measure.


I would be out of rep every day for at least a week if I -repped all the atrocious, violent posts in this thread.

----------


## UWDude

> Wilson was elected to keep us out of the war,, and he took us there anyway.
> And vigorously prosecuted any dissent.


That's true!

And WW I was a bull$#@! war.  And the Americans were as much the bad guys as the rest of the nations fighting for imperialism.

And I hate World War Woodrow Wilson more than any other president.  I think he was the worst ever.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Dictators manufacture consent first.
> 
> My moral position comes from the fact that the civilians of Germany were just as guilty as Hitler himself.   And they were.  The only ones who weren't were the ones who fled or objected.  
> 
> But there were freaking Jews at Hitler's night rallies.  That is how strong the religion of nationalism can be.
> 
> Am I supposed to pity and feel bad when these fools are exterminated for their vanity and nationalism?
> 
> Hell no.  War has consequences, and people must suffer those consequences, no matter what line of bull they were sold.  If they buy it, they deserve the consequences.


And everyone in the US is fair game for bombing because we're all as guilty as the bloodthirsty, murderous regime.

----------


## otherone

> Dictators manufacture consent first.


Yes.  By pointing out the atrocities of the _other_ nation, and claiming _his_ nation has the moral high ground.  Although it sounds hard to believe, some people are actually duped by this nonsense....

----------


## Zippyjuan

Thread topic has me thinking of Randy Newman.

----------


## Pericles

> Yes.  By pointing out the atrocities of the _other_ nation, and claiming _his_ nation has the moral high ground.  Although it sounds hard to believe, some people are actually duped by this nonsense....


There is plenty of evil to go around. No reason to think that the US has a monopoly on it.

----------


## UWDude

> And everyone in the US is fair game for bombing because we're all as guilty as the bloodthirsty, murderous regime.


No, not all.  I have addressed the terms "all" or "everyone" when determining the moral tragedy of civilians dying.

If I were killed by a WMD set up by some Iraqi or Afghan, who did it to get americans out of his country, I feel my tragedy of losing my life, even though I objected to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to be on par to the tragedy of fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan losing theirs fighting the imperialist armies of the Untied States.

I have said this many times, in many ways in this thread, but since people keep wanting to put words into my mouth and say that I am saying "all" and "everyone" deserves to die, I'll say it again.

----------


## UWDude

> Yes.  By pointing out the atrocities of the _other_ nation, and claiming _his_ nation has the moral high ground.  Although it sounds hard to believe, some people are actually duped by this nonsense....


In WW II.... ...the United States did have the high ground.

----------


## pcosmar

> There is plenty of evil to go around. No reason to think that the US has a monopoly on it.


I don't. The US is being manipulated as well. We are now the Police force of the Bankers (through the UN)

----------


## pcosmar

> In WW II.... ...the United States did have the high ground.


Until we entered it. Had we stayed out of the first one there would not have been a second one.

----------


## otherone

> In WW II.... ...the United States did have the high ground.


I would like a clarification from you and Pericles about what you mean by the US or United States.  If you are saying that the US Government had the moral authority to pluck young men from our towns and farms against their wills to die in some bloody hole or swamp halfway around the world, then I disagree.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> This morality sows the seeds for its own extermination; it invites counter-moralities to prevail. Curious morality, which fosters the opposite morality.


How can it be moral for a morality to foster the opposite morality?

----------


## UWDude

> I don't. The US is being manipulated as well. We are now the Police force of the Bankers (through the UN)



It is being manipulated because the people of the Untied States have not felt what war is.
Once they do, it will not be so easily manipulated.
Until then, a bunch of liberty minded people and pacifists preaching that war is wrong will not change the minds of Americans.
Americans are too fat from the spoils of war and too happy from the glories of war to be concerned about the realities of war.
It will take nothing short of the civilians of the United States tasting the ultimate flavor of war... ..which is wide scale death and destruction and misery, for them to finally realize war is not fun.

Until then, they will easily be commandeered and manipulated by whatever leader tells them they are the best, and that they are rich because they are smarter and more free than everybody else in the world, not because they are drinking the spoils of empire.

Nothing less than absolute terror and bloodshed will change the course of American imperialism, as is the tragic case in so many histories of nationalist imperialism, and as was the case in Japan and Germany in WW II.

----------


## amy31416

> I am defending the fact that it's wrong to lie in order to color your opponent with positions they do not hold, even if you disagree with them on EVERYTHING.  Lying is still lying.  The people who disagreed with Ron Paul about everything lied about him in order to paint him as something he wasn't.  It was wrong when they did it to him, and it would be wrong for US to do the same thing to John McCain himself, no matter how much we hate him.
> 
> Truth is truth, and when we are willing to abandon integrity in order to 'promote liberty' then we have already lost, and there is no sense in even trying.
> 
> See, in your post there you are trying to make it look like *I* am somehow defending (by extension) the murder of GITMO prisoners.  Do you really believe that I think that way or are you just using a rhetorical device to falsely paint someone you disagree with with disgusting positions they do not hold?
> 
> In your post there you are trying to make it look like *I* am somehow defending (by extension) the murder of civilians.  Do you really believe that I think that way or are you just using a rhetorical device to falsely paint someone you disagree with with disgusting positions they do not hold?
> 
> In your post there you are trying to make it look like *I* am somehow defending (by extension) an alleged collusion with the methodology of McCain and Graham.  Do you really believe that I think that way or are you just using a rhetorical device to falsely paint someone you disagree with with disgusting positions they do not hold?
> ...


Okey doke Gunny. The dude is fond of murder and is justifying it, nobody lied about that--and you're defending something about him. Everything else you typed is a bunch of rubbish that you're reading into this. AuH2O is not a decent person, and he is never someone I would ever consider allying myself with.

I have noticed that a lot of our former military fellows are freaking the $#@! out on this issue--even ones that I respect quite a bit.

Can't wait until the next debate on abortion where all these same jerks who defend civilian murders go ape over the pro-choice advocates.

----------


## pcosmar

> I would like a clarification from you and Pericles about what you mean by the US or United States.  If you are saying that the US Government had the moral authority to pluck young men from our towns and farms against their wills to die in some bloody hole or swamp halfway around the world, then I disagree.


Draft=manufactured consent

----------


## UWDude

> Until we entered it. Had we stayed out of the first one there would not have been a second one.


I do not do include hypotheticals into my historical arguments.  But Germany was a nation founded on its army.  To tell me they would not try European expansionism and empire again, or even moreso if they had won world war I is a hypothetical that might be fun to ponder, but that has no real bearing on this conversation, since 1) it is a hypothetical, and 2) the likelihood that Germany would continue to try imperialist expansionism in Europe in high.

----------


## UWDude

> I would like a clarification from you and Pericles about what you mean by the US or United States.  If you are saying that the US Government had the moral authority to pluck young men from our towns and farms against their wills to die in some bloody hole or swamp halfway around the world, then I disagree.


Feel free to disagree.  Like I said, I believe in everything when it comes to fighting aggressive empires, including the draft, including chemical weapons, including nuclear weapons, including torture.  I do not believe in the rules of war.  

But I also believe war is a grave decision which is taken far too lightly, and used far too often.

but when defending yourself from a pair of expanding empires who are bent on world domination... ...all options are on the table, as they say.

----------


## otherone

> Feel free to disagree.  Like I said, I believe in everything when it comes to fighting aggressive empires, including the draft, including chemical weapons, including nuclear weapons, including torture.  I do not believe in the rules of war.


You believe in murdering your own people to combat murderers.

----------


## UWDude

> You believe in murdering your own people to combat murderers.


Know I believe in forcing people to fight, and yes, die, to combat an empire on a track for world conquest.  Because if nobody fights, the aggressor will win, and continue to kill more people.  And of course, if I were alive in WW II, I would have volunteered, and supported the draft, and been happy when I heard that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed, because it meant the end was near, if I got to live to see that day.

Furthermore, it is not fair that only those who are awake and aware of the threat, and the courageous, fight and die for the lives of the cowards and apathetic. Therefore, I believe the draft in WW II was just and necessary.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Okey doke Gunny. The dude is fond of murder and is justifying it, nobody lied about that--and you're defending something about him. Everything else you typed is a bunch of rubbish that you're reading into this. AuH2O is not a decent person, and he is never someone I would ever consider allying myself with.
> 
> I have noticed that a lot of our former military fellows are freaking the $#@! out on this issue--even ones that I respect quite a bit.
> 
> Can't wait until the next debate on abortion where all these same jerks who defend civilian murders go ape over the pro-choice advocates.


*
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to amy31416 again.
*Sorry, hun.  TPTB won't let me give you the +rep you deserve.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Okey doke Gunny. The dude is fond of murder and is justifying it, nobody lied about that--and you're defending something about him. Everything else you typed is a bunch of rubbish that you're reading into this. AuH2O is not a decent person, and he is never someone I would ever consider allying myself with.
> 
> I have noticed that a lot of our former military fellows are freaking the $#@! out on this issue--even ones that I respect quite a bit.
> 
> Can't wait until the next debate on abortion where all these same jerks who defend civilian murders go ape over the pro-choice advocates.


Seriously?  I wasn't defending AuH2O, I was opposing the application of sophistry.  

In case you are unfamiliar with me, I have a history of stepping in to oppose lies when they are levied against McCain, Romney, and even Obama too.  Would you therefore also paint me as an Obama supporter, or someone 'aligned with' Obama simply because I oppose all use of deception in argumentation no matter where it's applied?

So now, because I am a military veteran, you are trying to paint me like I am a blood-thirsty civilian-killer?

Seriously Amy?  Do you really think that shoving positions that I do not now nor have I ever held, in order to fabricate opposition to me for positions I do not hold, is a practice that we in the liberty movement should accept or engage in?

This isn't about whom you support or whom you oppose.  This isn't about whom you align with or whom you reject.  This is about the basic principle of _TRUTH_.  If we abandon truth simply because it becomes convenient to do so, then we in fact become _enemies_ of liberty, because liberty cannot exist without responsibility, and responsibility cannot exist without integrity.

As Ron Paul said in his farewell address, the Constitution is only fit for a moral people.  If we are so quick to abandon morality over arguments within our own movement, then how can we be expected to maintain our morality when a real enemy like Lindsey Graham is involved?  If if we are unwilling to afford liberty to those we hate, then we will never know liberty ourselves.  And frankly, deservedly so.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to amy31416 again.
> *Sorry, hun.  TPTB won't let me give you the +rep you deserve.


Seriously. painting me as a baby-killer because I oppose deception of all quarters is +rep worthy?

LOL I guess I really don't know you at all.

----------


## pcosmar

> I do not do include hypotheticals into my historical arguments.  But Germany was a nation founded on its army. .


Germany did not start WWI.. and it was conditions placed on Germany as a result that provoked WWII.

Aside from that,, there were many in Germany that opposed it.. openly.. And resisted. So drop that "will of the people" bull$#@!.

In Japan the people had no say at all. they were subjects..with no voice. The Emperor and the Military Elite ran that show.

----------


## otherone

> Furthermore, it is not fair that only those who are awake and aware of the threat, and the courageous, fight and die for the lives of the cowards and apathetic. Therefore, I believe the draft in WW II was just and necessary.


Wow....full circle....


> Dictators manufacture consent first.


I guess the manufacturing was successful in your case.

----------


## Pericles

> Okey doke Gunny. The dude is fond of murder and is justifying it, nobody lied about that--and you're defending something about him. Everything else you typed is a bunch of rubbish that you're reading into this. AuH2O is not a decent person, and he is never someone I would ever consider allying myself with.
> 
> I have noticed that a lot of our former military fellows are freaking the $#@! out on this issue--even ones that I respect quite a bit.
> 
> Can't wait until the next debate on abortion where all these same jerks who defend civilian murders go ape over the pro-choice advocates.


Maybe for some of us the issues are more than hypothetical. How much risk do I accept for myself, or more importantly, for the lives of the people for which I have responsibility. Some of us can see ourselves in the shoes of the battalion commander who thought a suspected insurgent knew more than he was willing to say, and threatened the suspected insurgent's life. The suspect turned out not to be a suspect, but was a real insurgent who gave up the location of a nearby IED. The battalion commander, then turned himself in to his brigade commander for violating the laws of war. The battalion commander was kicked out of the Army, but every man in his battalion would gladly have him back in command - they believe his actions saved some of their lives.

In the la la land of the Rothbard fan club, it is easy to dismiss this incident with the people in the Army get what they deserve. Should the government and economy continue on their current paths, such moral delimmas may come closer than one may think.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

This all will come as a huge relief to aggressors willing to utilize human shields. Once we eliminate the several dissidents and their pesky ideology.

----------


## UWDude

> Germany did not start WWI.. and it was conditions placed on Germany as a result that provoked WWII.
> 
> Aside from that,, there were many in Germany that opposed it.. openly.. And resisted. So drop that "will of the people" bull$#@!.


Which war are you talking about?  Even the Socialists, who were _very strong_ in Germany before WW I, but who claimed to be about class consciousness first, disappointed the Russian Socialists when the war broke out, and the German Socialist rallied behind the German government.  The socialists were the only real opposition in Germany to the German government, but when it came time to prove they would oppose on the great war, they instead became the good little patriots they were supposed to be.

And as I said before, the only real dissenters in WW II Germany fled or were communists, or ended up in concentration camps.  The rest of the civilians varied in degrees of consent from stockholm syndrome to outright racial superiority indoctrinates.




> In Japan the people had no say at all. they were subjects..with no voice. The Emperor and the Military Elite ran that show.


Not true.  No government runs without some form of consent from its people.  It is a simplistic worldview to assume that one dictator can run a country on fear and charisma alone.

----------


## UWDude

> Wow....full circle....
> I guess the manufacturing was successful in your case.


Would you stop with the bull$#@!?

I am talking about WW II.

What wars are you talking about?

----------


## pcosmar

> Maybe for some of us the issues are more than hypothetical. How much risk do I accept for myself, or more importantly, for the lives of the people for which I have responsibility. Some of us can see ourselves in the shoes of the battalion commander who thought a suspected insurgent knew more than he was willing to say, and threatened the suspected insurgent's life. The suspect turned out not to be a suspect, but was a real insurgent who gave up the location of a nearby IED. The battalion commander, then turned himself in to his brigade commander for violating the laws of war. The battalion commander was kicked out of the Army, but every man in his battalion would gladly have him back in command - they believe his actions saved some of their lives.
> 
> .


Would you feel the same if it was an invading Battalion Commander and one of you militia men threatened to give up your defenses?

Cuz that's what happened.

----------


## otherone

> Would you stop with the bull$#@!?
> 
> I am talking about WW II.
> 
> What wars are you talking about?


WW2 of course.  Although FDR didn't need to manufacture consent.  He merely plucked the "cowards" as you say, from their homes, jobs, and sweethearts to go be blown to bits in FDR's "moral" war.
That sure showed Tojo.
Leviathan demands blood sacrifice.

----------


## Pericles

> Would you feel the same if it was an invading Battalion Commander and one of you militia men threatened to give up your defenses?
> 
> Cuz that's what happened.


If one of my guys was going to give up information, I would be required to execute him myself. Good order and discipline and all of that. Accepting command responsibility involves a great deal of unpleasantness. As a rule, professional soldiers don't surrender.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Maybe for some of us the issues are more than hypothetical. How much risk do I accept for myself, or more importantly, for the lives of the people for which I have responsibility. Some of us can see ourselves in the shoes of the battalion commander who thought a suspected insurgent knew more than he was willing to say, and threatened the suspected insurgent's life. The suspect turned out not to be a suspect, but was a real insurgent who gave up the location of a nearby IED. The battalion commander, then turned himself in to his brigade commander for violating the laws of war. The battalion commander was kicked out of the Army, but every man in his battalion would gladly have him back in command - they believe his actions saved some of their lives.
> 
> In the la la land of the Rothbard fan club, it is easy to dismiss this incident with the people in the Army get what they deserve. Should the government and economy continue on their current paths, such moral delimmas may come closer than one may think.


None of that matters, of course because

Military Vet = Baby Killer

Explains why it's hypocrisy for a vet to oppose abortion you see.

And this is what I get for opposing _all_ deception full stop.

----------


## Dr.3D

> None of that matters, of course because
> 
> *Military Vet = Baby Killer*
> 
> Explains why it's hypocrisy for a vet to oppose abortion you see.
> 
> And this is what I get for opposing _all_ deception full stop.


Somebody told me that was only in the movies.   Of course they weren't there to know the truth.

----------


## AuH20

> It is being manipulated because the people of the Untied States have not felt what war is.
> Once they do, it will not be so easily manipulated.
> Until then, a bunch of liberty minded people and pacifists preaching that war is wrong will not change the minds of Americans.
> Americans are too fat from the spoils of war and too happy from the glories of war to be concerned about the realities of war.
> It will take nothing short of the civilians of the United States tasting the ultimate flavor of war... ..which is wide scale death and destruction and misery, for them to finally realize war is not fun.
> 
> Until then, they will easily be commandeered and manipulated by whatever leader tells them they are the best, and that they are rich because they are smarter and more free than everybody else in the world, not because they are drinking the spoils of empire.
> 
> Nothing less than absolute terror and bloodshed will change the course of American imperialism, as is the tragic case in so many histories of nationalist imperialism, and as was the case in Japan and Germany in WW II.


Like it or not, we are part of a collective and are viewed as such by other nation states. Hypothetically speaking, if the PLA ever invaded the U.S. mainland they simply wouldn't pass over those who self-identified as an caps or peaceniks. They too would probably be killed on sight.

----------


## pcosmar

> And as I said before, the only real dissenters in WW II Germany fled or were communists, or ended up in concentration camps.  The rest of the civilians varied in degrees of consent from stockholm syndrome to outright racial superiority indoctrinates.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ance_to_Nazism



> Approximately 77,000 German citizens were killed for one or another form of resistance


In Japan there was little resistance.. They were well conditioned and uninformed slaves. They did as they were told.
http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/resistnc.htm

----------


## Contumacious

> Like it or not, we are part of a collective and are viewed as such by other nation states. Hypothetically speaking, if the PLA ever invaded the U.S. mainland they simply wouldn't pass over those who self-identified as an caps or peaceniks. They too would probably be killed on sight.


Have you noticed that Hitler did not invade Switzerland even though they have common borders?

N -E-U-T-R-A-L-I-T-Y.

.

----------


## AuH20

> None of that matters, of course because
> 
> Military Vet = Baby Killer
> 
> Explains why it's hypocrisy for a vet to oppose abortion you see.
> 
> And this is what I get for opposing _all_ deception full stop.


Normally, on most web forums, I'm insulted as paulbot, military hater and other fond pejoratives.

----------


## AuH20

> Have you noticed that Hitler did not invade Switzerland even though they have common borders?
> 
> N -E-U-T-R-A-L-I-T-Y.
> 
> .


I think that had more to do with their revered banking status more than anything else and the fact that it's a highly mountainous region.

----------


## pcosmar

> If one of my guys was going to give up information, I would be required to execute him myself. Good order and discipline and all of that. Accepting command responsibility involves a great deal of unpleasantness. As a rule, professional soldiers don't surrender.


The "insurgents" are not professional solders as a rule. They are the unorganized militia.. Neighborhood watch,,just doing what they can.

in other words,, Patriots.

And I doubt that guy "surrendered",, more like he was captured.

----------


## JK/SEA

hmmm...so as i read through these posts and the OP, can i safely assume that those who advocate nuking cities would have no problem in ordering a nuclear carpet bombing of the Middle East?....

god-damn bunch of evil mother-$#@!ers in here.

----------


## pcosmar

> Have you noticed that Hitler did not invade Switzerland even though they have common borders?
> 
> N -E-U-T-R-A-L-I-T-Y.
> 
> .


They are holding everyone's bets. The Bankers run this $#@!,, bottom line.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I think that had more to do with their revered banking status more than anything else and the fact that it's a highly mountainous region.


Everybody had a rifle and the geography didn't lend itself to simple military strategy.  In other words, it would have been a tough nut to crack.

----------


## eduardo89

> Have you noticed that Hitler did not invade Switzerland even though they have common borders?
> 
> N -E-U-T-R-A-L-I-T-Y.


There would be absolutely nothing to gain from invading Switzerland. They were not a threat, not in a strategic location, and did not possess anything that would help the war effort.

----------


## AuH20

> hmmm...so as i read through these posts and the OP, can i safely assume that those who advocate nuking cities would have no problem in ordering a nuclear carpet bombing of the Middle East?....
> 
> god-damn bunch of evil mother-$#@!ers in here.


I think that this quite a leap on your part. The Middle East isn't a world player. There is no superpower with malicious imperial intentions to be found there. Why would anyone advocate for a nuclear dispersal in that region?

----------


## eduardo89

> Everybody had a rifle and the geography didn't lend itself to simple military strategy.  In other words, it would have been a tough nut to crack.


The German speaking parts of Switzerland could have pretty easily been invaded from Germany and annexed. The geography would be much more problematic in the Italian speaking areas.

----------


## Seraphim

Sort of. Hitler ASKED the Swiss if he could march through to get to the other side.

Unlike most of the rest of Europe, Switzerland, much like the USA, is/was composed of HIGHLY armed citizens. Hitler knew forcefully pushing his way through would end his conquest before it even begun.

The Swiss allowed them to walk through citing neutrality - Hitler logically concluded a forceful invasion would be disastrous.

Lots of Switzerlands = no world dominance march by tyrants. Foreign Policy through citizen armament.

This is a bit off topic though  lol




> Have you noticed that Hitler did not invade Switzerland even though they have common borders?
> 
> N -E-U-T-R-A-L-I-T-Y.
> 
> .

----------


## Contumacious

> I think that had more to do with their revered banking status more than anything else and the fact that it's a highly mountainous region.


Have you noticed that Osama did not blow up any buildings in  Switzerland ?

N -E-U-T-R-A-L-I-T-Y.

----------


## DamianTV

> In general, war is the health of the State--see the "ratchet effect". A bit more specifically, territorial control, resources and economic incentives, power plays/posturing, domestic expansion.


Actually, it has nothing to do with that.  Those are some of the more common excuses that the Leaders of Govts use as justification to attack or invade another country.  Excuses are used to prevent the citizens of that country from recognizing their own Govts as a threat.

Countries go to war because their Leaders respond to those that control the Leaders, which is the Central Banks and Mega Corporations.  And nothing is more profitable to a Central Bank than War.  War also allows the Govts of countries to have more control over their own cattle / human livestock / citizens.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I think that this quite a leap on your part. The Middle East isn't a world player. There is no superpower to be found there. Why would anyone advocate for a nuclear dispersal in that region?


9/11...9/11/.../9/11.....

not a leap at all. This country (U.S.A.) has, (in case you forgot) been $#@!in' around over there forever. Why not end this bull$#@! and fry those rag heads eh?...should make all you blood thirsty $#@!s happy to see charred remains of innocent people...RIGHT?

----------


## Pericles

> Have you noticed that Hitler did not invade Switzerland even though they have common borders?
> 
> N -E-U-T-R-A-L-I-T-Y.
> 
> .


And willing to fight to the death.

 General Guisan issued another order, published in the press. 

    Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience of each fighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his assigned position. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their position until no more ammunition exists. The cold steel is next.... The machine-gunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, if in the bunker or on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapons, or allow the enemy to seize them. Then the crews fight further like riflemen. As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapon to use, he does not yield. 

He also ordered that any person who gave an order to surrender (to include the President of Switzerland) was to be shot immediately.

----------


## AuH20

> 9/11...9/11/.../9/11.....
> 
> not a leap at all. This country (U.S.A.) has, (in case you forgot) been $#@!in' around over there forever. Why not end this bull$#@! and fry those rag heads eh?...should make all you blood thirsty $#@!s happy to see charred remains of innocent people...RIGHT?


Most of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the same $#@!s who purchase our t-bills with their sovereign wealth funds.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Most of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the same $#@!s who purchase our t-bills with their sovereign wealth funds.


so?....Saudi Arabia isn't considered middle east?.....

----------


## eduardo89

> He also ordered that any person who gave an order to surrender* (to include the President of Switzerland)* was to be shot immediately.[/INDENT]


Switzerland doesn't have a president.

----------


## Pericles

> The "insurgents" are not professional solders as a rule. They are the unorganized militia.. Neighborhood watch,,just doing what they can.
> 
> in other words,, Patriots.
> 
> And I doubt that guy "surrendered",, more like he was captured.


And the only real information he had of value was the IED location and a few names - but he gave it all up very easily - not a true believer.

----------


## AuH20

> so?....Saudia Arabia isn't considered middle east?.....


Not to the politicians who bow to them. The Saudis are technically a terror state, but never ever get lumped together with the Irans and Syrias of the region.

----------


## CCTelander

It's always a bit disheartening to find out just how many bloodthirsty savages identify themselves as members of the so-called "liberty movement."

We really can't do better than this? Really?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Countries go to war because their Leaders respond to those that control the Leaders, which is the Central Banks and Mega Corporations.  And nothing is more profitable to a Central Bank than War.  War also allows the Govts of countries to have more control over their own cattle / human livestock / citizens.


With vanishingly few exceptions.  +Rep



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

----------


## Pericles

> Switzerland doesn't have a president.


A one year rotating position from the 7 member governing council.

http://www.admin.ch/br/org/bp/

----------


## Contumacious

> There would be absolutely nothing to gain from invading Switzerland. They were not a threat, not in a strategic location, and did not possess anything that would help the war effort.


Really?

Why the $#@! did they annexed Austria?

Didn't Hitler -  "kleindeutsch" German Empire - include his German "Aryan brothers" in Switzerland?

.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Not to the politicians who bow to them. The Saudis are technically a terror state, but never ever get lumped together with the Irans and Syrias of the region.


heh..you're the one advocating using WMD's on our 'perceived' enemies, like that 5 year old little girl or boy and their parents doing nothing to harm me...

GTFO....

Truly a disgusting thread.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

This whole thread is nothing but an oscillating kneejerk.

We could probably make a brilliant Rube Goldberg Machine out of it.

----------


## Contumacious

> And willing to fight to the death.
> 
>  General Guisan issued another order, published in the press. 
> 
>     Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience of each fighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his assigned position. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their position until no more ammunition exists. The cold steel is next.... The machine-gunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, if in the bunker or on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapons, or allow the enemy to seize them. Then the crews fight further like riflemen. As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapon to use, he does not yield. 
> 
> He also ordered that any person who gave an order to surrender (to include the President of Switzerland) was to be shot immediately.


"The Military of Switzerland perform the roles of Switzerland's militia and regular army. Under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent[citation needed] of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old. Because of a long history of neutrality, the army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but takes part in peacekeeping missions around the world."

And that is what the Founding Fathers intended for our Country. 

They didn't want standing Armies which the stupid motherfuckers could use as trip wires in order to invade every country on the face of mother earth.

.

----------


## AuH20

> This whole thread is nothing but an oscillating kneejerk.
> 
> We could probably make a brilliant Rube Goldberg Machine out of it.


This thread is largely one massive overreaction. Yet the insults are being hurled around like horseshoes.

----------


## JK/SEA

> This whole thread is nothing but an oscillating kneejerk.
> 
> We could probably make a brilliant Rube Goldberg Machine out of it.


i consider doing the right thing an act of integrity, but using WMD's on cities is not the right thing to do...ever.

----------


## Dr.3D

War is disgusting!   Those who have not witnessed it, should be glad they haven't.  Those who have, understand just how civilized it really is.

----------


## Pericles

> "The Military of Switzerland perform the roles of Switzerland's militia and regular army. Under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent[citation needed] of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old. Because of a long history of neutrality, the army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but takes part in peacekeeping missions around the world."
> 
> And that is what the Founding Fathers intended for our Country. 
> 
> They didn't want standing Armies which the stupid motherfuckers could use as trip wires in order to invade every country on the face of mother earth.
> 
> .


Which is why we should be damned careful about getting into any wars.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> i consider doing the right thing an act of integrity, but using WMD's on cities is not the right thing to do...ever.


Certainly not in any real-world scenario that is actually possible according to the universal laws of physics.  

Knee-jerks and deceptive sophistry is flying around on both sides of the debate here.  That is not the right thing to do either.

----------


## AuH20

> War is disgusting!   Those who have not witnessed it, should be glad they haven't.  Those who have, understand just how civilized it really is.


War is a last resort enterprise as opposed to a first response. It is so horrible because there are no moral bounds.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> So if some maniac decided to tell a guy that his whole city will be nuked unless he murders your children with an axe....


... then most here would be unwilling to stop the city from getting nuked; and most here would condemn whoever did what had to be done to stop the city from getting nuked.

----------


## eduardo89

> Really?
> 
> Why the $#@! did they annexed Austria?
> 
> Didn't Hitler -  "kleindeutsch" German Empire - include his German "Aryan brothers" in Switzerland?
> 
> .


Austria overwhelmingly embraced and advocated annexation into the Reich. The term you're looking for it Großdeutsches Reich, "Kleindeutsch" means "little german."

Many Swiss wanted to be annexed by Germany, and probably would have been had Germany won the war. With the opening of the Eastern Front, though, resources were better placed there than annexing and occupying Switzerland which held zero strategic value in the war.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Which is why we should be damned careful about getting into any wars.



by my count we're  0-4 or 5...

----------


## eduardo89

> A one year rotating position from the 7 member governing council.
> 
> http://www.admin.ch/br/org/bp/


Yes, but there is no special power vested in the President of the Council. He simply heads the meetings and is the face of the National Council.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> by my count we're  0-4 or 5...


We didn't nuke them into submission...

----------


## Pericles

> War is a last resort enterprise as opposed to a first response. It is so horrible because there are no moral bounds.


Among professional soldiers there are moral bounds. Insurgencies get nasty quick, because the insurgents frequently go outside the bounds, and political based quasi military organizations, such as the Soviet Commisariat or Nazi SS, profess unconditional loyalty to political figures made conventional warfare exceedingly brutal as a matter of national policy.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> We didn't nuke them into submission...



Insert _Boobus Americanus_ "Glass Parking Lot har har har" comment here.

Oops, someone will now probably accuse of advocating the nuclear obliteration of the Middle East.

----------


## Contumacious

> Austria overwhelmingly embraced and advocated annexation into the Reich. The term you're looking for it Großdeutsches Reich, "Kleindeutsch" means "little german."
> 
> Many Swiss wanted to be annexed by Germany, and probably would have been had Germany won the war. With the opening of the Eastern Front, though, resources were better placed there than annexing and occupying Switzerland which held zero strategic value in the war.



 The Kaiser didn’t attack the Swiss. Hitler didn’t attack the Swiss (though he thought about it a lot). Stalin started to pursue some refugees into Liechtenstein at the end of WWII, but retreated rather than face the Swiss-Liechtenstein alliance. Terrorists don’t attack the Swiss.

Nobody attacks the *Swiss.* Not even the Swiss attack the Swiss; their crime rate is minuscule.

*The features of the Swiss system for keeping the peace are simple. They have a president with no power to declare war (of course ours can’t either, but no one has told HIM)*

.

----------


## otherone

> *The features of the Swiss system for keeping the peace are simple. They have a president with no power to declare war*
> 
> .


OMG...you mean minarchy can work?  Someone tell Cabal....

----------


## eduardo89

> The Kaiser didn’t attack the Swiss. Hitler didn’t attack the Swiss (though he thought about it a lot). Stalin started to pursue some refugees into Liechtenstein at the end of WWII, but retreated rather than face the Swiss-Liechtenstein alliance. Terrorists don’t attack the Swiss.


That's not true. Stalin's Army were no where near Liechtenstein and the couple of hundred Russian Nationalist soldiers that were in Liechtenstein either voluntarily returned to the USSR (to be executed) or were given asylum in Argentina. This was in accordance with the agreement between the allies that Soviet citizens would be repatriated to the Soviet Union after the war. The Red Army would have crushed any Swiss-Liechtenstein alliance.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

The government inside this imaginary line did not like the government inside that imaginary line. Therefore, it is moraly justified to kill everyone inside the other imaginary line so their government stops fighting this one.

----------


## Pericles

> Swiss.[/B] Not even the Swiss attack the Swiss; their crime rate is minuscule.
> 
> *The features of the Swiss system for keeping the peace are simple. They have a president with no power to declare war (of course ours can’t either, but no one has told HIM)*
> 
> .


Not quite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...nt/2546737.stm

   The attack took place at the Temple of Queen Hatshepsut, one of Egypt's best known tourist sites.

 





 	  	  No resistance was met by the six young gunmen as they unleashed a hail of bullets.  The tourists had little chance of escape.
   Four Japanese honeymoon couples, 36 Swiss and three generations of a  British family from Yorkshire including a five year old girl, were among  the victims.  
  Egypt quickly drew a veil over the incident, blaming a local Islamist  gang, all of whom died after a police chase near the scene. 
   A Swiss inquiry concluded that the attack was carried out by Islamist  fundamentalists wanting to damage tourism and destabilise the Egyptian  economy and Government. 


As one of my Swiss friends said after this incident: "One thing I'll say for the United States, if an American gets killed anywhere in the world, somebody gets bombed. And if you're lucky, you even get the guys who did it. When Swiss get killed, everybody here says, if they had known they were Swiss it would have never happened."

----------


## Cabal

> OMG...you mean minarchy can work?  Someone tell Cabal....


Misrepresentation of my position. My objections to statism aren't about its capacity to work or not. In any case, 'work' is a pretty loose term. But that's not what this thread is about.

----------


## otherone

> Misrepresentation of my position. My objections to statism aren't about its capacity to work or not. In any case, 'work' is a pretty loose term. But that's not what this thread is about.


lol.  I thought I had to say your name two more times for you to show up...

----------


## Cabal

> lol.  I thought I had to say your name two more times for you to show up...


I'm feeling generous today.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Insert _Boobus Americanus_ "Glass Parking Lot har har har" comment here.
> 
> Oops, someone will now probably accuse of advocating the nuclear obliteration of the Middle East.


you didn't vote in the poll, so we have to assume...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> you didn't vote in the poll, so we have to assume...


Already explained why I didn't vote in the poll.  I don't agree with OP's definition of "justified" nor the definition of "morality" and if we cannot agree on the premises, then there is no path to conclusions.

I further explained that only a basically physically impossible reductio ad absurdum could legitimize such an action (ie take out a [largely complicit] city in order to prevent the planet Earth from literally exploding into dust and vapor), and demonstrated that even if that _were_ somehow a real situation, that it would be all but impossible to know that it was genuine, or that a nuke would stop it, and so it would still be immoral to act without such knowledge as it was impossible to obtain.

Basically the use of reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the necessary requirements that would make the action was legitimate, was intended to demonstrate that the action is basically illegitimate in the real world where such a threshold of requirements are either physically impossible, or blatantly unknowable.

And you know that they say about ass-u-me....  

ETA -- hmm, re-reading and re-thinking that post, I think I may need to take up advocacy for the English implementation of the sarcmark again...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> The surest way for the US to prevent the loss of life in a war is for the US to surrender.


You are engaging in disingenuous equivocation.

I was addressing the loss of life specifically in relation to an unnecessary invasion of the Japanese mainland - and the use of that putative loss of life as an excuse for using nuclear bombs. I was clearly NOT addressing the loss of life in the general war prior to that point. So if you wish to rebut what I actually said - rather than the strawman you have invoked - you will have to try again.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Some members of this forum appear to need some assistance in clarifying their moral thinking. To sell material to Japan to further assist the Japanese Empire in violating your sacred NAP is itself a violation of the NAP in that it enables further aggression.


"To sell material guns to Japan people to further assist the Japanese Empire people in violating your sacred NAP is itself a violation of the NAP in that it enables further aggression."

Every gun manufacturer and gun seller "enables further aggression" - are you prepared to denounce them as well? Or is it only okay to assign indirect collective guilt against people with whom you disagree?

You are right about one thing, though - some members of this forum do indeed appear to need some assistance in clarifying their moral thinking. (They also need to learn what the NAP actually means and implies.)




> Lenin was absolutely correct in telling communists not to worry about obtaining the means with which to destroy capitalism. The Capitalist will happily sell us the rope with which we will hang him.


"Lenin was absolutely correct" ... ? Are you serious? Tell me: how did "buying the rope" with which Lenin wanted to "hang the Capitalist" work out for Leninism/Commuinism in the end? Not so well, as I recall ...




> If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, I'm starting to wonder if the NAP is the last refuge of a moral coward.


Perhaps it is - for fools who imagine that they can play "six degrees  of Kevin Bacon" for purposes of assigning collectivistic moral guilt as a means of excusing their own moral turpitude.

ETA: Also, far, far more often than not, patriotism is the first refuge of scoundrels, not the last ...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> If your neighbor was being beaten or raped, would you intervene? After all, you are not being aggressed against.


I would (or I like to think that I would). But whether I would or not, I have absolutely no right whatsoever to force my other neighbors to do so on my behalf.

IOW: There is no way to apply your analogy to "humanitarian" war without adopting outright collectivism.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> if I sat around for an hour and tortured the hell out of some reason, I could probably come up with a scenario


That's the whole thing about strategic aggressors. They start off by sitting around thinking up scenarios that would give them some advantage.




> I further explained that only a basically physically impossible reductio ad absurdum could legitimize such an action (ie take out a [largely complicit] city in order to prevent the planet Earth from literally exploding into dust and vapor),


So if an aggressor refrained from literally exploding Eath into dust and vapor, you would be more okay with him destroying the world? More okay if he proceeded in an out-of-the-way laboratory, tinkering with fish and tomato DNA, searching for that perfect combination which when released, would finish the job? By the way, he has positioned his laboratory in the basement of a daycare center, and there's no other way in.

----------


## UWDude

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ance_to_Nazism
> 
> 
> [/url]


yes.  You are only confimriming my point.  
The only armed resistance was from communists and some tiny bit from Polaks.
The rest of the resistance was propaganda and church resistance (in a good way)
Those who resisted were turned in by all the other "innocent" civilians of Germany.
"Innocent Civilians" in Germany were hard to come by under the Nazi regime.  They like being told they were scientifically best and the most intelligent people on the planet.  It was an easy sell.  It always is.

----------


## UWDude

> hmmm...so as i read through these posts and the OP, can i safely assume that those who advocate nuking cities would have no problem in ordering a nuclear carpet bombing of the Middle East?....
> 
> god-damn bunch of evil mother-$#@!ers in here.


No, you can't assume that.  And obviously you have not been reading the posts in this thread.




> 9/11...9/11/.../9/11.....
> 
> not a leap at all. This country (U.S.A.) has, (in case you forgot) been $#@!in' around over there forever. Why not end this bull$#@! and fry those rag heads eh?...should make all you blood thirsty $#@!s happy to see charred remains of innocent people...RIGHT?


Yup, you haven't read the posts in this thread at all, just jumped in with your knee-jerk emotional reaction.

----------


## surf

I have a tendency to kill threads, so here goes

----------


## green73

Hall of shame.


69360,AuH20,BamaAla,BarryDonegan,CaptLouAlbano,Carsten2012b,CaseyJones,Cdn_for_liberty,compromise,dillo,krugminator,liveandletlive,NoOneButPaul,PeaceRequiresAnarchy,Philhelm,Teenager For Ron Paul,UWDude,Varin,Warrior_of_Freedom,XNavyNuke

----------


## Dr.3D

> Hall of shame.
> 
> 
> 69360,AuH20,BamaAla,BarryDonegan,CaptLouAlbano,Carsten2012b,CaseyJones,Cdn_for_liberty,compromise,dillo,krugminator,liveandletlive,NoOneButPaul,PeaceRequiresAnarchy,Philhelm,Teenager For Ron Paul,UWDude,Varin,Warrior_of_Freedom,XNavyNuke


My, how liberal of you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My, how liberal of you.


Since when is shaming an exclusively "liberal" thing?

----------


## amy31416

> Maybe for some of us the issues are more than hypothetical. How much risk do I accept for myself, or more importantly, for the lives of the people for which I have responsibility. Some of us can see ourselves in the shoes of the battalion commander who thought a suspected insurgent knew more than he was willing to say, and threatened the suspected insurgent's life. The suspect turned out not to be a suspect, but was a real insurgent who gave up the location of a nearby IED. The battalion commander, then turned himself in to his brigade commander for violating the laws of war. The battalion commander was kicked out of the Army, but every man in his battalion would gladly have him back in command - they believe his actions saved some of their lives.
> 
> In the la la land of the Rothbard fan club, it is easy to dismiss this incident with the people in the Army get what they deserve. Should the government and economy continue on their current paths, such moral delimmas may come closer than one may think.


You don't have responsibility for my or my family's life, and wanting to nuke other innocent people will likely put my and my family's life at more risk now and especially in the future.

I didn't ask for your service and I don't want it, especially when that "service" involves killing innocent people, or even "guilty" ones.

The only thing I will ever ask for from the Federal gov't and/or military is actual defense--and we haven't had a genuinely defensive war or military action in my lifetime. I have more respect for the police than I do the military, and that isn't saying much.

----------


## AuH20

> Hall of shame.
> 
> 
> 69360,AuH20,BamaAla,BarryDonegan,CaptLouAlbano,Carsten2012b,CaseyJones,Cdn_for_liberty,compromise,dillo,krugminator,liveandletlive,NoOneButPaul,PeaceRequiresAnarchy,Philhelm,Teenager For Ron Paul,UWDude,Varin,Warrior_of_Freedom,XNavyNuke


That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. We chose American servicemen over Japanese civilians in this particular instance. I wish the question was phrased differently as opposed to yes and no, since yes implies a plurality of scenarios where WMD use would be applicable, when that's simply not the case. Such moral dilemmas are extremely extremely rare, when it's a no-win conclusion of either option A or option B.

----------


## JCDenton0451

I don't understand shaming people for having the guts to voice a different (minority) point of view. Are we supposed to always agree on everything?

----------


## amy31416

> I don't understand shaming people for having the guts to voice a different (minority) point of view. Are we supposed to always agree on everything?


Well, supporting indiscriminate killing using other people's children and money should be shameful.

----------


## pcosmar

Utilitarianism and Moral Relativism are dangerous positions.
I prefer principles.

----------


## AuH20

> Utilitarianism and Moral Relativism are dangerous positions.
> *I prefer principles.*


So do I. But if it's going to come down between a willing enemy populace and my tribe in this historic instance, I'm going to pick my tribe.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

..

----------


## pcosmar

> So do I. But if it's going to come down between a willing enemy populace and my tribe in this historic instance, I'm going to pick my tribe.


I will find another way that does not rely on incinerating entire cities of civilians.

----------


## AuH20

> I will find another way that does not rely on incinerating entire cities of civilians.


I speculate Truman wished he was given a third option. I doubt he wanted to vaporize 200k Japanese civilians. He participated in the first world war as an artillery commander.

----------


## otherone

> So do I. But if it's going to come down between a willing enemy populace and my tribe in this historic instance, I'm going to pick my tribe.


Sometimes one's tribe does not not give it's members the luxury of choice.

----------


## pcosmar

> I speculate Truman wished he was given a third option. I doubt he wanted to vaporize 200k Japanese civilians.


He had options.
 He chose that one.

----------


## AuH20

> Sometimes one's tribe does not not give it's members the luxury of choice.


The high priests of the tribe make a series of unethical decisions that leads to the aforementioned moral dilemma. In turn, the rest of the tribe is left holding the proverbial mop.

----------


## otherone

> The high priests of the tribe make a series of unethical decisions that leads to the aforementioned. In turn, the rest of the tribe is left holding the proverbial mop.


Yes. 10 million Americans were drafted to hold that proverbial mop in ww2.

----------


## klamath

You have war and you have abortion. It is all killing. This thread just seems to be about the details of killing in war. Many on here consider a war in this very country would be a grand and just thing and they are highly rated "FREEDOM FIGHTERS". If we were talking about the details of abortion killing it would be describing how the surgical steel penetrates the epidermis in the posterior cranium, fracturing the rear cranial plate, entering the medulla, then advancing to the brain stem. Suction removes the pulsing arterial blood from the severed carotid artery.......

So to me it is why you think LONG and hard about whether entering EITHER act is in True self defense or somebody's self justification that it is self defense. In either act an innocent person *WILL* die. Don't let anybody ever convince you that only the guilty will die.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> But please don't kill the people feeding the monster!  That's immoral!


Early to mid 20th century Japan was a voluntaryist society? All this time that people have been asking for examples of an anarchist society, and this has been there the whole time. Fantastic!

----------


## liberty2897

> Are there times when dropping WMDs on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified?


No.

----------


## pcosmar

> Voted no.
> 
> But there are many who attempt to justify it.


Post #3

and the pages since are people attempting to justify it.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> OMG...you mean minarchy can work?  Someone tell Cabal....





> Leviathan is a living monster, as it is composed of people.  It needs to be fed, and when fed it grows.  War is a growth phase, like a snake shedding it's skin....


You seem to think it can't. Unless you believe in feeding Leviathan doesn't cause it to grow, which would be a bizarre stance to hold, given your previous statement.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Seriously. painting me as a baby-killer because I oppose deception of all quarters is +rep worthy?
> 
> LOL I guess I really don't know you at all.


She said many of the pro-nuke military members are the first to jump down the throat of pro-choice advocates.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> If one of my guys was going to give up information, I would be required to execute him myself. Good order and discipline and all of that. Accepting command responsibility involves a great deal of unpleasantness. As a rule, professional soldiers don't surrender.


State dictate and wearing a costume condones murder.

Awesome.

----------


## UWDude

> Sometimes one's tribe does not not give it's members the luxury of choice.


The people they attack and invade never want it.  They are the innocent civilians, not the people of the nation doing the invading.

----------


## eduardo89

> The people they attack and invade never want it.  They are the innocent civilians, not the people of the nation doing the invading.


So I guess since you are a US citizen then it is ok for anyone the US invades to murder you. You're not innocent by your own standards, after all.

----------


## AuH20

> So I guess since you are a US citizen then it is ok for anyone the US invades to murder you. You're not innocent by your own standards, after all.


I think he conceded that point earlier. To our country's enemies, we would be viewed as part of the hostile collective.

----------


## UWDude

> So do I. But if it's going to come down between a willing enemy populace and my tribe in this historic instance, I'm going to pick my tribe.


I will not pick my tribe.  As I already stated, you will not find me boo-hooing if Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria or Libya suddenly found a way to nuke an American city ad could do so with some secret weapon that let them get away with it.  In all those instances, America got away with murder,a dn if justice should find it, I am sure most on here would talk about what a horrible act it was, but not I.

And if I were to die in said attack, I would loathe for Americans to use my corpse to demonize those nations America has already ruined and destroyed.  America is bringing upon itself what is coming.  Aggressive, imperialist empires will be sacked and burned.  Humanity eventually finds a way to deal with bullies, who get fat and complacent.

----------


## UWDude

> So I guess since you are a US citizen then it is ok for anyone the US invades to murder you. You're not innocent by your own standards, after all.



I already addressed this about a dozen times now in this $#@!ing thread.  But of course I actually _always_read other people's posts before responding, unlike about half of you indignant, assumptive knee-jerk pitchforksters.


Yes, it would be wrong for me, as a detractor from these wars to get killed, but my loss of my life would be no more tragic than the loss of the lives of the soldiers who defended Iraq and the fighters who defend Afghanistan.

I find it amazing how many of you people who beleive in peace do not even have the capacity to try to understand another person's point of view before jumping to conclusions about why they feel the way they do.

Oh, and if any city deserves a good nukin', it's Tel Aviv.

----------


## AuH20

> I will not pick my tribe.  As I already stated, you will not find me boo-hooing if Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria or Libya suddenly found a way to nuke an American city ad could do so with some secret weapon that let them get away with it.  In all those instances, America got away with murder,a dn if justice should find it, I am sure most on here would talk about what a horrible act it was, but not I.
> 
> And if I were to die in said attack, I would loathe for Americans to use my corpse to demonize those nations America has already ruined and destroyed.  America is bringing upon itself what is coming.  Aggressive, imperialist empires will be sacked and burned.  Humanity eventually finds a way to deal with bullies, who get fat and complacent.


In that particular instance, the tribe was the right choice. Deferring to the tribe isn't automatic. Let's say Israel attacks the nuclear facility at Natanz and then  the Iranians retaliate with a lethal attack via one of their proxies, thrusting the U.S. into a world war. Technically, the Iranians would have the moral high ground.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I already addressed this about a dozen times now in this $#@!ing thread.  But of course I actually _always_read other people's posts before responding, unlike about half of you indignant, assumptive knee-jerk pitchforksters.
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be wrong for me, as a detractor from these wars to get killed, but my loss of my life would be no more tragic than the loss of the lives of the soldiers who defended Iraq and the fighters who defend Afghanistan.
> 
> I find it amazing how many of you people who beleive in peace do not even have the capacity to try to understand another person's point of view before jumping to conclusions about why they feel the way they do.
> 
> Oh, and if any city deserves a good nukin', it's Tel Aviv.


There are certain views that are so inherently immoral and just plain wrong that all the perspectives in the world won't justify it-like nuking civilians and raping children.

----------


## Philhelm

> Hall of shame.
> 
> 
> 69360,AuH20,BamaAla,BarryDonegan,CaptLouAlbano,Carsten2012b,CaseyJones,Cdn_for_liberty,compromise,dillo,krugminator,liveandletlive,NoOneButPaul,PeaceRequiresAnarchy,Philhelm,Teenager For Ron Paul,UWDude,Varin,Warrior_of_Freedom,XNavyNuke


That's not necessarily a fair assessment, since the parameters of the question were quite broad.  I would agree that civilian targets are generally dishonorable; however, if a scenario were presented in which my own were at risk and I could prevent it through extreme violence, I would.  In a general, conventional war scenario, the level of violence inflicted should be extreme, although not necessarily as extreme as the question asks, which is why war should never be waged for unjust reasons.

----------


## UWDude

> In that particular instance, the tribe was the right choice. Deferring to the tribe isn't automatic. Let's say Israel attacks the nuclear facility at Natanz and then  the Iranians retaliate with a lethal attack via one of their proxies, thrusting the U.S. into a world war. Technically, the Iranians would have the moral high ground.


Iran almost already does, after the US and Israel released stuxnet, which could have caused a nuclear meltdown and catastrophe.  That $#@! was wreckless and dangerous.  Had it been worse, America and Israel would have deserved to be burned to ash.

What i find amazing is many people here actually think World War II was an immoral war. Most wars America has been involved in were immoral, but WW II was not one of them.  Then people are extrapolating that if someone supports bombing a civilian area in one instance of war, then they must have to support it in all instances, regardless of the cause of war.

Then the most noble, but misguided, are those that think if nobody killed anybody, there would be no wars.  While it is a true statement, it also will NEVER happen, and sometimes, rabid dogs must be put down with no mercy, no fear, and no guilt.  And that's what happened to japan.

By the way, Germany had a sub on the way to Japan with all of the German research on how to build a nuclear weapon when it surrendered.  They were working on one too.  what do you suppose they wanted it for?

----------


## eduardo89

> I already addressed this about a dozen times now in this $#@!ing thread.  But of course I actually _always_read other people's posts before responding, unlike about half of you indignant, assumptive knee-jerk pitchforksters.


Honestly, I tend to not bother reading your drivel. 




> Oh, and if any city deserves a good nukin', it's Tel Aviv.


Yeah, I'm sure all those children living in Tel Aviv deserve to die.

I'm as anti-Zionist as they come, but never would I wish death on innocents, nor say they deserve to die.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Hall of shame.


As opposed to the Hall of Morality, consisting of people who would surrender free reign to any aggressor utilizing human shields.

----------


## UWDude

> There are certain views that are so inherently immoral and just plain wrong that all the perspectives in the world won't justify it-like nuking civilians and raping children.


It's not just plain wrong.  It's too bad you can not realize sometimes horrible things must be done to end wars.  When those horrible things must be done, you should blame the aggressor, not the victim.

It's just like saying shooting the person who is robbing you is wrong, because murder is wrong.  It just isn't that simple.

Civilians are not by default innocent.  And soldiers are not by default, guilty.  Civilians do not deserve life more than soldiers just because of their lot in life.  Indeed, soldiers who fight and die for honorable causes are worth 100 civilians who cheer on the aggressive wars of their nations, because the soldiers are acting selflessly, whilst the civilians are acting selfishly.

----------


## UWDude

> Honestly, I tend to not bother reading your drivel.


Then don't ask me questions, if you aren't going to read the answers.



> Yeah, I'm sure all those children living in Tel Aviv deserve to die.


Moreso than the fighters of the PLF and Hezbollah.  Moreso than the children of Palestine.




> I'm as anti-Zionist as they come, but never would I wish death on innocents, nor say they deserve to die.


Except the "real americans defend Israel" avatar.

----------


## AuH20

> Iran almost already does, after the US and Israel released stuxnet, which could have caused a nuclear meltdown and catastrophe.  That $#@! was wreckless and dangerous.  Had it been worse, America and Israel would have deserved to be burned to ash.
> 
> What i find amazing is many people here actually think World War II was an immoral war. Most wars America has been involved in were immoral, but WW II was not one of them.  Then people are extrapolating that if someone supports bombing a civilian area in one instance of war, then they must have to support it in all instances, regardless of the cause of war.
> 
> Then the most noble, but misguided, are those that think if nobody killed anybody, there would be no wars.  While it is a true statement, it also will NEVER happen, and sometimes, rabid dogs must be put down with no mercy, no fear, and no guilt.  And that's what happened to japan.
> 
> By the way, Germany had a sub on the way to Japan with all of the German research on how to build a nuclear weapon when it surrendered.  They were working on one too.  what do you suppose they wanted it for?


WW1 had some dubious origins and in turn laid the seeds for WW2. That was the continuum at work. Regarding the Japanese, despite FDR's treachery it was only a matter of time before the Japanese empire and Americans came to blows. Japan would have most likely taken Austrailia and expanded eastward across the Pacific. The German situation was far more complex because Hitler simply wanted 'Lebensraum' for his Third Reich. The Nazis were deranged killers but they did not seek world domination.

----------


## Cabal

> As opposed to the Hall of Morality, consisting of people who would surrender free reign to any aggressor utilizing human shields.


Refusing to drop atomic bombs on civilian populations = surrendering free reign to any aggressor utilizing human shields.


^ Observe. This is what happens when you take the blue pill.

----------


## amy31416

> She said many of the pro-nuke military members are the first to jump down the throat of pro-choice advocates.


That is the only thing I intended to imply with that statement. Thank you.

If Gunny thinks that I consider him a "baby-killer," he is wrong.

----------


## UWDude

> WW1 had some dubious origins and in turn laid the seeds for WW2. That was the continuum at work. Regarding the Japanese, despite FDR's treachery it was only a matter of time before the Japanese empire and Americans came to blows. Japan would have most likely taken Austrailia and expanded eastward across the Pacific. The German situation was far more complex because Hitler simply wanted 'Lebensraum' for his Third Reich.


The whole lebensraum thing was enough to not pity any civilian who supported the Nazis in Dresden.  I am glad they were burned to death.  $#@! 'em.  The gene pool was cleansed a bit.  I hope it was painful for them.  Maybe in the last moments of their lives they realized what total $#@!s they were, and that they deserved to die for being the nazis they were.  Then they would get an iota of pity for me, but just an iota.  Too bad it took some of them being incinerated to realize what stupid dupes they were.

20 milllion Russians had to die for the arrogance of the German people, and I am supposed to feel bad about a hundred thousand of them being firebombed to death?  Please.

----------


## UWDude

> Refusing to drop atomic bombs on civilian populations = surrendering free reign to any aggressor utilizing human shields.
> 
> 
> ^ Observe. This is what happens when you take the blue pill.


No, you just wish aggressive imperialist nations, and the people that support them, would stop at some point.  They don't.  that's red pill.  Blue pill is thinking singing kumbayah will stop imperialists.  It won't.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's not just plain wrong.  It's too bad you can not realize sometimes horrible things must be done to end wars.  When those horrible things must be done, you should blame the aggressor, not the victim.
> 
> It's just like saying shooting the person who is robbing you is wrong, because murder is wrong.  It just isn't that simple.
> 
> Civilians are not by default innocent.  And soldiers are not by default, guilty.  Civilians do not deserve life more than soldiers just because of their lot in life.  Indeed, soldiers who fight and die for honorable causes are worth 100 civilians who cheer on the aggressive wars of their nations, because the soldiers are acting selflessly, whilst the civilians are acting selfishly.


Damn, and I thought Rumsfeld was a sociopath.  You outdo him by many, many miles.   I pray that you never get anywhere close to a position to order any sort of military or police action.  You are _extremely_ dangerous.

----------


## amy31416

> That's not necessarily a fair assessment, since the parameters of the question were quite broad.  I would agree that civilian targets are generally dishonorable; however, if a scenario were presented in which my own were at risk and I could prevent it through extreme violence, I would.  In a general, conventional war scenario, the level of violence inflicted should be extreme, although not necessarily as extreme as the question asks, which is why war should never be waged for unjust reasons.


Civilian targets are always dishonorable. And when I say civilians, I mean genuine civilians.

ALWAYS.

----------


## amy31416

> Damn, and I thought Rumsfeld was a sociopath.  You outdo him by many, many miles.   I pray that you never get anywhere close to a position to order any sort of military or police action.  You are _extremely_ dangerous.


See why I avoid people?

----------


## Uriah

*All acts of violence are committed by individuals against individuals.*

----------


## AuH20

> The whole lebensraum thing was enough to not pity any civilian who supported the Nazis in Dresden.  I am glad they were burned to death.  $#@! 'em.  The gene pool was cleansed a bit.  I hope it was painful for them.  Maybe in the last moments of their lives they realized what total $#@!s they were, and that they deserved to die for being the nazis they were.  Then they would get an iota of pity for me, but just an iota.  Too bad it took some of them being incinerated to realize what stupid dupes they were.
> 
> 20 milllion Russians had to die for the arrogance of the German people, and I am supposed to feel bad about a hundred thousand of them being firebombed to death?  Please.


Some Germans tried to right the wrongs however:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...om-Cruise.html

----------


## UWDude

> Damn, and I thought Rumsfeld was a sociopath.  You outdo him by many, many miles.   I pray that you never get anywhere close to a position to order any sort of military or police action.  You are _extremely_ dangerous.


I am getting called a lot of names.

What I am not getting is an explanation why a soldier who dies for the freedom of others is worth less than a civilian who does nothing, much less a civilian that supports his government in the robbing and killing of others.

Anybody want to take a stab at explaining to me why a soldier fighting for a righteous cause, sacrificing everything he has, is worth less than some person sitting on their hands and doing nothing, or worse, cheering on their murderous empire?

I'll make it easy.  Somebody tell me why a 20 year old soldier, fighting for a righteous cause, is worth less than a 14 year old child in the Hitler Youth program.

Ok, not easy.  How about just a 20 year old soldier fighting for a righteous cause vs a 14 year old kid who doesn't pay attention to politics and doesn't care, just wants to date girls and be cool.  Maybe we can start with an explanation for how we as a species decided the former was worth less than the latter.

Any takers?

----------


## UWDude

> Some Germans tried to right the wrongs however:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...om-Cruise.html


Yes, some, however, in the 1970's, 45% of Germans still believed Hitler was right.

----------


## eduardo89

> The whole lebensraum thing was enough to not pity any civilian who supported the Nazis in Dresden.  I am glad they were burned to death.  $#@! 'em.  The gene pool was cleansed a bit.  I hope it was painful for them.


You're a sick piece of $#@! if you believe that.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Just wondering, the Soviets declared war on Japan with no provocation in 1945. Would Japan have been morally justified in using chemical weapons on Vladivostok?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I am getting called a lot of names.
> 
> What I am not getting is an explanation why a soldier who dies for the freedom of others is worth less than a civilian who does nothing, much less a civilian that supports his government in the robbing and killing of others.
> 
> Anybody want to take a stab at explaining to me why a soldier fighting for a righteous cause, sacrificing everything he has, is worth less than some person sitting on their hands and doing nothing, or worse, cheering on their murderous empire?
> 
> I'll make it easy.  Somebody tell me why a 20 year old soldier, fighting for a righteous cause, is worth less than a 14 year old child in the Hitler Youth program.
> 
> Ok, not easy.  How about just a 20 year old soldier fighting for a righteous cause vs a 14 year old kid who doesn't pay attention to politics and doesn't care, just wants to date girls and be cool.  Maybe we can start with an explanation for how we as a species decided the former was worth less than the latter.
> ...


Because that 20 year old soldier isn't fighting for a righteous cause. He's fighting under the banner of the State, and his income is derived from stolen goods.

----------


## amy31416

> I am getting called a lot of names.
> 
> What I am not getting is an explanation why a soldier who dies for the freedom of others is worth less than a civilian who does nothing, much less a civilian that supports his government in the robbing and killing of others.
> 
> Anybody want to take a stab at explaining to me why a soldier fighting for a righteous cause, sacrificing everything he has, is worth less than some person sitting on their hands and doing nothing, or worse, cheering on their murderous empire?
> 
> I'll make it easy.  Somebody tell me why a 20 year old soldier, fighting for a righteous cause, is worth less than a 14 year old child in the Hitler Youth program.
> 
> Ok, not easy.  How about just a 20 year old soldier fighting for a righteous cause vs a 14 year old kid who doesn't pay attention to politics and doesn't care, just wants to date girls and be cool.  Maybe we can start with an explanation for how we as a species decided the former was worth less than the latter.
> ...


Righteous cause that our gov't takes on?

Come on--you can't be that daft.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Refusing to drop atomic bombs on civilian populations = surrendering free reign to any aggressor utilizing human shields.
> 
> ^ Observe. This is what happens when you take the blue pill.


Absolutely refusing to kill an "innocent civilian" under any circumstances =  surrendering free reign to any aggressor utilizing human shields;

and many in this thread have stated that it is unjustifiable or immoral to kill an "innocent civilian" under any circumstance.

----------


## UWDude

> Because that 20 year old soldier isn't fighting for a righteous cause. He's fighting under the banner of the State, and his income is derived from stolen goods.


I disagree.  Ending the aggression of japan and Germany in WW II was a righteous cause.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> No, you just wish aggressive imperialist nations, and the people that support them, would stop at some point.  They don't.  that's red pill.  Blue pill is thinking singing kumbayah will stop imperialists.  It won't.


The time to fight is when they roll up on our shores.

*It aint going to $#@!ing happen.*

I'll be singing kumbayah when they draft your ignorant ass to go kill foreign nationals for narrow political reasons. (a whore for Rothschilds, no doubt) I'll be singing kumbayah when all of that tough $#@! you are spewing about not being totally against torture and bombs or this and that has your ass pissing your pants. Funny.

Chris Kyle would be proud. Talk about all the mothers you've bodied and jerk off to fantasies of if only more. Rationalize it as them being savages and you being just because you were born on some particular area of rock. 

God I hate people.

The epitome of what is wrong with this nation.

I'd post a link to War is a Racket but what's the point?

----------


## AuH20

> I disagree.  Ending the aggression of japan and Germany in WW II was a righteous cause.


And in turn creating a more powerful foe that would plague us for the next 50 years.

----------


## eduardo89

> And in turn creating a more powerful foe that would plague us for the next 50 years.


The US should have joined the Germans in destroying communism once and for all.

----------


## UWDude

> Righteous cause that our gov't takes on?
> 
> Come on--you can't be that daft.


yes.  WW II was righteous.

Anybody want to argue that the Japanese and Nazis were actually on the right side of that war?  That their wholesale murder of Russians, slavs, Jews, Chinese, Americans, Brits, french, Polaks and everyone else was justified and righteous?  

Anybody want to argue that the japanese and Germans did not need to be stopped?  That if no soldier had stood up and put his life on the line, we would be living in anything but a totalitarian hell hole beyond the wildest imaginations of even the most imaginative Nazi today?

Give me a break.

WW II was a righteous war.  It had to be fought, and it had to be won.

----------


## alucard13mm

Kill Japanese children (who are pretty much defenseless) versus deaths of US soldiers (who are trained to fight for their lives)...

I dunno. On one hand you have Americans. On the other you have children. But then again American soldiers have families with children... but... 

Bah. Seems bad no matter which you choose.

----------


## pcosmar

> Any takers?


I have not been calling names. I simply disagree with your entire premise.
You are attempting to defend the indefensible.

And I am not a 14 year old kid. I was not in Nam,, but am a Nam era vet.

This $#@! was done before I was born,, I have studied the history. It was wrong. Period.
It is yet another great evil from the past,, right along with forced sterilization, and medical experimentation, and weapons testing on unsuspecting civilians.

It is wrong.

----------


## UWDude

> The time to fight is when they roll up on our shores.
> 
> *It aint going to $#@!ing happen.*
> 
> I'll be singing kumbayah when they draft your ignorant ass to go kill foreign nationals for narrow political reasons. (a whore for Rothschilds, no doubt) I'll be singing kumbayah when all of that tough $#@! you are spewing about not being totally against torture and bombs or this and that has your ass pissing your pants. Funny.
> 
> Chris Kyle would be proud. Talk about all the mothers you've bodied and jerk off to fantasies of if only more. Rationalize it as them being savages and you being just because you were born on some particular area of rock. 
> 
> God I hate people.
> ...


Nobody would be fool enough to draft me for an immoral war.  If they did, they could just count on a few dead officers in a fragging incident.  Because that is exactly what I would do as soon as I had the chance.  No way would I kill for an immoral empire.

Why is it ev eryone keeps acting like every single war is the same?  That is just simply not true.

----------


## UWDude

> I have not been calling names. I simply disagree with your entire premise.
> You are attempting to defend the indefensible.
> 
> And I am not a 14 year old kid. I was not in Nam,, but am a Nam era vet.
> 
> This $#@! was done before I was born,, I have studied the history. It was wrong. Period.
> It is yet another great evil from the past,, right along with forced sterilization, and medical experimentation, and weapons testing on unsuspecting civilians.
> 
> It is wrong.


Bombing Vietnamese civilians was evil
Bombing Japanese civilians was just.

The two wars were tow different situations, and some easy blanket statement of morality does not make the wars themselves the same situation.

And just calling it wrong doesn't make it wrong.

I want an explanation form somebody.

----------


## BamaAla

> I have not been calling names. I simply disagree with your entire premise.
> You are attempting to defend the indefensible.
> 
> And I am not a 14 year old kid. I was not in Nam,, but am a Nam era vet.
> 
> This $#@! was done before I was born,, I have studied the history. It was wrong. Period.
> It is yet another great evil from the past,, right along with forced sterilization, and medical experimentation, and weapons testing on unsuspecting civilians.
> 
> It is wrong.


I'm not getting off on the other conversations as they are just making people bitter, but your statement about studying history and it being wrong are intriguing. I too have studied history and I feel the decision was right. What, in your opinion, would have been a better option in August of 1945?

----------


## amy31416

> The time to fight is when they roll up on our shores.
> 
> *It aint going to $#@!ing happen.*
> 
> I'll be singing kumbayah when they draft your ignorant ass to go kill foreign nationals for narrow political reasons. (a whore for Rothschilds, no doubt) I'll be singing kumbayah when all of that tough $#@! you are spewing about not being totally against torture and bombs or this and that has your ass pissing your pants. Funny.
> 
> Chris Kyle would be proud. Talk about all the mothers you've bodied and jerk off to fantasies of if only more. Rationalize it as them being savages and you being just because you were born on some particular area of rock. 
> 
> God I hate people.
> ...


I hope folks like you are around if/when that happens.

----------


## pcosmar

> yes.  WW II was righteous.


That is some strong Kool Aid.

No Thanks.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> yes.  WW II was righteous.
> 
> Anybody want to argue that the Japanese and Nazis were actually on the right side of that war?  That their wholesale murder of Russians, slavs, Jews, Chinese, Americans, Brits, french, Polaks and everyone else was justified and righteous?  
> 
> Anybody want to argue that the japanese and Germans did not need to be stopped?  That if no soldier had stood up and put his life on the line, we would be living in anything but a totalitarian hell hole beyond the wildest imaginations of even the most imaginative Nazi today?
> 
> Give me a break.
> *
> WW II was a righteous war.  It had to be fought, and it had to be won*.


You've made it quite clear in this thread you don't know anything of substance about that war.  You are entirely incorrect.

----------


## AuH20

> Kill Japanese children (who are pretty much defenseless) versus deaths of US soldiers (who are trained to fight for their lives)...
> 
> I dunno. On one hand you have Americans. On the other you have children. But then again American soldiers have families with children... but... 
> 
> Bah. Seems bad no matter which you choose.


It pretty much mirrored the end of a 1960s Batman episode. There was no "good" choice. It was about selecting the least horrible outcome.

----------


## UWDude

> Kill Japanese children (who are pretty much defenseless) versus deaths of US soldiers (who are trained to fight for their lives)...
> 
> I dunno. On one hand you have Americans. On the other you have children. But then again American soldiers have families with children... but... 
> 
> Bah. Seems bad no matter which you choose.


and even this quote shows the inherent sexism and child worship of our species.  Why is it the soldier's family and children we should be concerned about?  How about the soldier himself? Especially if that soldier is putting his life on the line for other people's freedom and safety? 

So then, you have to make a deeper judgement.

----------


## amy31416

> Nobody would be fool enough to draft me for an immoral war.  If they did, they could just count on a few dead officers in a fragging incident.  Because that is exactly what I would do as soon as I had the chance.  No way would I kill for an immoral empire.
> 
> Why is it ev eryone keeps acting like every single war is the same?  That is just simply not true.


Because every "war" for the last 50+ years has been immoral. Do you need this spelled out for you?

And yes, you WOULD kill for an immoral empire as your posts have shown. Get a grip.

----------


## amy31416

> and even this quote shows the inherent sexism and child worship of our species.  Why is it the soldier's family and children we should be concerned about?  How about the soldier himself? Especially if that soldier is putting his life on the line for other people's freedom and safety? 
> 
> So then, you have to make a deeper judgement.


Freedom and safety? WTF?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm not getting off on the other conversations as they are just making people bitter, but your statement about studying history and it being wrong are intriguing. I too have studied history and I feel the decision was right. What, in your opinion, would have been a better option in August of 1945?


I know you're not asking me, but I feel like answering...let the Germans and Soviets have at each other.  WRT Germany, those are the primary forces at odds.  The US regime got into it for entirely selfish, sociopathic reasons.  (To this day, the rest of the world considers the Soviets the victors in that war, you know-and they're correct.  Google "Victory Day" or "день победы", as celebrated in Russia)

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm not getting off on the other conversations as they are just making people bitter, but your statement about studying history and it being wrong are intriguing. I too have studied history and I feel the decision was right. What, in your opinion, would have been a better option in August of 1945?


my opinion.

They were defeated, their fleet sunk,, their resources depleted. While our navy was stronger than ever and the nation geared up for wartime production.

They could be blockaded easily. From my understanding they were ready to surrender and only terms were being quibbled about.
They were contained and no longer a threat.

I would have pushed for the surrender and blockaded them until they agreed.
A week or a month is of little relevance.

----------


## UWDude

> You've made it quite clear in this thread you don't know anything of substance about that war.  You are entirely incorrect.


Yeah, I am only a $#@!ing history major, and have only read over a hundred historical books.

...and not just books that focus on wars and generals, like most "history aficionados", as so many people like to call themselves, but the bulk of my reading has been about culture, propaganda, the subaltern, etc.

And I get another empty attack on me, my morals, and my knowledge, without any actual substance.  How am I wrong about the history of WW II?  How am I wrong abotu a soldier dying for a righteous cause is more a tragedy than a civilian dying who supported or tacitly supported an aggressive empire?

I am getting such visceral reactions because what I am saying is messing with beliefs held by many that are never questioned.  The cliche "innocent civilians" is used so often together, it is just assumed civilians are by default, innocent.  They are not.  Civilians are what make soldiers go to war for empire.   

So please, somebody explain to me why a soldier who fights for a just cause is worth less than a civilian who does nothing.  Then we can move on to why a soldier who fights for a just cause is worth less than a civilian who pays lip service to the actions of their imperial empire, and finally, we can try to hash out why a soldier who fights for a just cause, is worth less than a civilian that gives support and praise to the people carrying out the murderous actions of their empire.

And Please don't even try to shame me by saying "I think it is detestable to even be comparing human lives at all" like I am sure some here think they should say to try to weasel out of answering the question.  No, we make judgements all the time about what type of people are preferred.  Indeed, it only makes us come full circle, as the whole argument is that for some reason, civilians deserve to die less than soldiers.

----------


## UWDude

> Because every "war" for the last 50+ years has been immoral. Do you need this spelled out for you?
> 
> And yes, you WOULD kill for an immoral empire as your posts have shown. Get a grip.


What war am I talking about?

I'll give you a hint, the Japanese and Germans were on one side, and the Americans, French and British the other.

Do you know yet?

What year did that happen?

Another hint, it was over 50 years ago.

----------


## UWDude

> my opinion.
> 
> They were defeated, their fleet sunk,, their resources depleted. While our navy was stronger than ever and the nation geared up for wartime production.
> 
> They could be blockaded easily. From my understanding they were ready to surrender and only terms were being quibbled about.
> They were contained and no longer a threat.
> 
> I would have pushed for the surrender and blockaded them until they agreed.
> A week or a month is of little relevance.


So whose fault is it the Japanese were quibbling?  Who started the war?  Why should the Americans have listened to anything the Japanese said?

Do you understand, that in wars of annihilation, only complete and utter surrender of the enemy is victory?  Anything else is a set-up for a comeback.

In the case of WW II, the Axis were the bad guys.  That's all there is too it. 

And I still have yet to find anybody to tell me they were actually the side of justice and righteousness.  Any takers on that one?  Is my "knowledge of history" so poor that I fail to see how it was actually the allies that were the evil ones, and the axis the good guys? 

Anybody want to argue for the nazis and imperial japanese?  Anyone?

----------


## pcosmar

> Civilians are what make soldiers go to war for empire.


Bull$#@! again. And was (and am) a soldier.

Soldiers throughout history have been the tool of empires,, Pawns in the games of Kings.
Most for "Glory" or Prestige. except for those pressed into service at the point of a sword or manipulated by propaganda.

Few fight defensive wars,, and that is out of necessity. If i ever pick up arms again it will be that alone and it will not be on some foreign soil.

----------


## amy31416

> What war am I talking about?
> 
> I'll give you a hint, the Japanese and Germans were on one side, and the Americans, French and British the other.
> 
> Do you know yet?
> 
> What year did that happen?
> 
> Another hint, it was over 50 years ago.


50+ is key


WWII--and what's your point? The war was immoral.

----------


## UWDude

> Bull$#@! again. And was (and am) a soldier.
> 
> Soldiers throughout history have been the tool of empires,, Pawns in the games of Kings.
> Most for "Glory" or Prestige. except for those pressed into service at the point of a sword or manipulated by propaganda.
> 
> Few fight defensive wars,, and that is out of necessity. If i ever pick up arms again it will be that alone and it will not be on some foreign soil.


So, lets say that Mexicanadastan invades the United States, and bombs them.

Lets say they do it because they have decided Mexicanadatanese are the superior race, and that America will surrender, the Americans will be executed wholesale, so the Mexicananadastanese can use them for slaves and take their homes for lebensraum (living space).  Essentially, America is invaded by new nazis.

Are you telling me, you would only fight once they were within American borders, and once they were pushed out, you would not take the fight to them, to finish off their wicked ideology, and destroy their infrastructure that allowed them to start such a war in the first place? 

not invading, bombing, and destroying an aggressive nation with racial superiority ideologies is simply asking to get invaded again.  You have to take the fight to them and finish them off.

What you have written, is a popular excuse that allows "civilians" to shrug their responsibilities as human beings, and blame their "leaders" for the $#@! they do and believe.  Hitler would not have been able to invade Poland without the consent of a majority of the population of Germany.  he would not have been able to gas the Jews without the scientific racist beliefs of the German people at the time.  Hitler got away with what he did because the people of Germany let him, if not helped him.

Hitler didn't kill all the Jews by himself.  Hitler didn't drive all the trains, and runt he death camps by himself.  Hitler didn't lay waste to Russia all by himself.  Even Hitler and all his upper echelon commanders did not do it themselves.  Even Hitler, adn the SS did not do it by themselves.  Even Hitler, his echelon, the SS, and the entire German army and Navy did not do it by themselves.  It was the whole of Germany that did it.  

Trying to blame it on politicians and "leaders" is trying to make humanity look prettier than it really is.

And that is another reason why I am getting such visceral reactions.  Most of you want to beleive humans are by nature good people.  They aren't.  They are born with instinct to care about themselves, and their families first, and they will do terrible things to each other to foster and feed these instincts.  What I am writing is hurting your vain identities as part of the collective known as humanity, which you hold up as rational, generous and peace loving.

To an extent, they are, to an extent, they are also very generous with other people's stuff and lives and misery.

----------


## UWDude

> 50+ is key
> 
> 
> WWII--and what's your point? The war was immoral.


WW II was immoral?

LoL.
 Then we have nothing left to discuss, because you will never convince me the Japanese and Germans were the good guys in that one.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That is the only thing I intended to imply with that statement. Thank you.
> 
> If Gunny thinks that I consider him a "baby-killer," he is wrong.


Then do please be careful with your words, as well as with your interpretation of what others say.  When you point out the hypocrisy of a military veteran taking up a pro-life position, there are not many options available for how that is interpreted.  Likewise, the military veterans here tend to be more anti-war as a rule than the non-veterans -- just because we can articulate things from a war-fighter's perspective does not make us advocates for such wholesale slaughter as wars bring.

I saw a quote recently that was very profound to me, something along the lines of don't judge others for not being as far along as you are, because you yourself once still had things to learn.  I can't find it so I don't know who said it, but it's appropriate for the moment.

The original question was poorly worded, and destined to cause division.  The vast majority of us here pretty much agree on what government needs to look like -- almost to the point where establishmentarians would consider all of us in lock-step.  And yet someone comes up with a silly reductio ad absurdum and now we want to rip each other's throats into bloody mush.

Understand that absurdums are DESIGNED to reveal and hilight division, if not to outright create division where none existed. 

Here we are talking about a situation that happened before any of us were even born, and which is highly unlikely to occur again for the rest of our lives -- and are we really going to hate each other for differing opinions on something that nobody on this entire forum will ever experience?

We are between 5 and 10 percent, and just now starting to grow.  We can't afford to start hating each other over irrelevant bull$#@! now.  Now, in our freaking moment of glory when it's in our own hands to win or lose, are we going to pick 'lose' over a divergence of opinions over some absurd bull$#@! that none of us will ever experience for the rest of our lives?

This is exactly what the Rove's and the Boehner's want.  Are we going to give them the satisfaction?

I, for one, hope not.  We have finally come to the point where victory is damn near in reach.  We have the real possibility of kicking Lindsey Graham out of power.  Newt Jackass Gingrich is coming to terms with the fact that we are the future of the GOP, and the next damn President of the United $#@!ing States is likely to be from our faction.

If we fall apart now, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves, and William Kristol will be laughing all the way to the halls of power.

It's finally ours to lose, and damn if we aren't trying as hard as we can to do just that.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Honestly, I tend to not bother reading your drivel.


That's why I put that braying jackass on Ignore a long time ago.

Unfortunately, the Ignore function doesn't block quoted material in other peoples' posts ...

----------


## amy31416

> WW II was immoral?
> 
> LoL.
>  Then we have nothing left to discuss, because you will never convince me the Japanese and Germans were the good guys in that one.


Please quote where I stated that the Japanese and Germans were the "good guys".

Thanks.

And yeah, WWII was immoral, just in case that didn't sink in.

----------


## pcosmar

> So, lets say that Mexicanadastan invades the United States, and bombs them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The US should have joined the Germans in destroying communism once and for all.


You know... "Are you kidding me?" was my first response, but honestly, this is really no more immoral than teaming with Stalin.

I'll usually concede that WWII was justified because Japan attacked us, because it really doesn't matter at this point, and trying to convince an ignorant idiot that Hitler and Tojo weren't completely aggressors against the United States (And yeah, I think we did to some extent provoke the attack, but technically we were attacked) when I have enough trouble trying to convince them that Saddam wasn't an aggressor against the United States... well... you have to pick your battles.

At the end of the day, however, I don't think we should have gotten involved.  I don't think we should have sanctioned Japan, or anyone else.

Here's my question though... ignorant fools who don't know Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, maybe even worse, defend US involvement in WWII because the Holocaust.  I'd be the first to agree with you, at the end of the day, that that wasn't justified.

But... why would you team up with Hitler?  I mean... seriously?

----------


## BamaAla

> my opinion.
> 
> They were defeated, their fleet sunk,, their resources depleted. While our navy was stronger than ever and the nation geared up for wartime production.
> 
> They could be blockaded easily. From my understanding they were ready to surrender and only terms were being quibbled about.
> They were contained and no longer a threat.
> 
> I would have pushed for the surrender and blockaded them until they agreed.
> A week or a month is of little relevance.


I agree that would have been a nicer end to the war, butof American where I depart from you is that we weren't fighting Japan in a vacuum. The Russians were in play. They were about to enter the war, and upon Japan's surrender, they would have been guaranteed an occupation zone in Japan. They had already demonstrated their intentions in Poland and the U.S. was not going to allow Poland/Berlin to be recreated in Japan. The only two options for total surrender were a full scale invasion of Honshu or an immediate end to the war via the bomb; only the latter kept the Soviets out and kept hundreds of thousands GI's alive. 

Hindsight is what it is, but they didn't have the luxury of 60+ years of post historical study to guide them. I guess that's my biggest bone of contention in this debate: applying current understanding to that decision. 

As far as the op's question, I don't know that Hiroshima is the best example for the hypothetical question, simply because it isn't hypothetical; we have more historical study of that event than an individual could consume in a lifetime. When I answered the question, I imagined disastrous, end of days situations where morality and humanity are thrown out the window and the will to survive trumps abstract ideas. Amy mentioned how dishonorable it may be earlier, but in my thinking there is a real, horrendous threat at the gate. In that situation, I'm not looking for honor. If that comes, I don't want a leader who is concerned about morality or honor at the helm, I want the meanest son of a bitch in the town. If that relegates me to the hall of shame, so be it, but I am far from palling around with McCain and Graham and, as I always have, I loathe war.

----------


## UWDude

> And yeah, WWII was immoral, just in case that didn't sink in.


The Allies were just in WW II.

Just in case you haven't figured out I disagree with our premise, and there is nothing left to discuss.

you and Neville chamberlain can discuss in heaven how the world should have turned the other cheek to the Nazis and imperial Japanese.  I bet there will be about 6 million Jews, 3 million Chinese, and 20 million Russians and Slavs who will kick your ass straight to hell for it, though.

----------


## UWDude

> That is some strong Kool Aid.
> 
> No Thanks.


So you think fighting the Imperial Japanese and Nazis was wrong?

please, enlighten me, obviously, I have been brainwashed and "drank the kool-aid" on that one.  

Silly me, thinking the Japanese and Germans had to be stopped.

----------


## Deborah K

> *Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified?*


If the city were D.C., uh.......never mind....

----------


## pcosmar

> I agree that would have been a nicer end to the war, butof American where I depart from you is that we weren't fighting Japan in a vacuum. The Russians were in play. They were about to enter the war, and upon Japan's surrender, they would have been guaranteed an occupation zone in Japan. They had already demonstrated their intentions in Poland and the U.S. was not going to allow Poland/Berlin to be recreated in Japan. The only two options for total surrender were a full scale invasion of Honshu or an immediate end to the war via the bomb; only the latter kept the Soviets out and kept hundreds of thousands GI's alive. 
> .


Yeah well,, 

the Rothschilds did have a convoluted mess laid out. and we ended up with that exact situation in Korea anyway..

What I find really bizarre is all the socialists fighting each other over terminology.

The US was socialist since the early 1900s,,and especially since the 1930s.. The Russians were socialists that called themselves Communists and the Germans were national socialists that didn't like the Russian socialists.

on the other side were old world empires in both Japan and China and were fighting each other till socialists jumped in on both sides.

Yup,, a convoluted mess with the Rothschild banks playing all sides for profit and control.

there was not a damn thing "righteous" about any of it.

----------


## amy31416

> The Allies were just in WW II.
> 
> Just in case you haven't figured out I disagree with our premise, and there is nothing left to discuss.
> 
> you and Neville chamberlain can discuss in heaven how the world should have turned the other cheek to the Nazis and imperial Japanese.  I bet there will be about 6 million Jews, 3 million Chinese, and 20 million Russians and Slavs who will kick your ass straight to hell for it, though.


Nope. And you can discuss in heaven how you killed tens of thousands of innocent people to make a point that you're a bad-ass.

I don't believe in hell, and I sure as hell would NOT pull the trigger to kill tens of thousands as you would--I would stay out of it, and I would be defensive. I would not nuke innocent people, nor would I bomb them, but I would shoot if they came into my country trying to kill.

In my understanding of religion, you're going to $#@!ing burn if you support genocide--and you do.

I have nothing against Germans, Japanese, Jews, Chinese or anyone else, in fact I'm part Russian, Slav, etc. So $#@! off and die. You go pull the trigger, pre-emptively GW Bush, I'm not.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> CHAPTER ONE 
> 
> *War Is A Racket 
> 
> WAR is a racket. It always has been.* 
> 
> It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. 
> 
> A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. 
> ...




RIP Smedley Butler.

----------


## UWDude

> RIP Smedley Butler.


WW I, like most wars, was a racket.  Nobody is denying that.

I am simply saying WW II was NOT a racket, and had to be done.

(actually, yes, a ton of people profited unfairly form WW II, including Nazis who got off easy because they were rich, but that doesn't mean that fighting the Japanese and Germans was immoral).

----------


## UWDude

> Nope. And you can discuss in heaven how you killed tens of thousands of innocent people to make a point that you're a bad-ass.
> 
> I don't believe in hell, and I sure as hell would NOT pull the trigger to kill tens of thousands as you would--I would stay out of it, and I would be defensive. I would not nuke innocent people, nor would I bomb them, but I would shoot if they came into my country trying to kill.
> 
> In my understanding of religion, you're going to $#@!ing burn if you support genocide--and you do.
> 
> I have nothing against Germans, Japanese, Jews, Chinese or anyone else, in fact I'm part Russian, Slav, etc. So $#@! off and die. You go pull the trigger, pre-emptively GW Bush, I'm not.


You are such a giant steaming pile of strawmen.

And if you only fought when they were inside your borders, you would have lost, and been a slave of the victors.  To win a war you must take a fight to the enemy.

Jesus Christ, who the $#@! is talking about pre-emptive wars, besides you?

You $#@! off and die.

But you know what, if I was ordered to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, I would.

If I was ordered to drop a hellfire missile on an Iraqi, I'd throw a grenade in my officer's bunk instead.

----------


## amy31416

> You are such a giant steaming pile of strawmen.
> 
> And if you only fought when they were inside your borders, you would have lost, and been a slave of the victors.  To win a war you must take a fight to the enemy.
> 
> Jesus Christ, who the $#@! is talking about pre-emptive wars, besides you?
> 
> You $#@! off and die.
> 
> But you know what, if I was ordered to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, I would.
> ...


And you'd be quite guilty of mass-murder if you dropped an A-bomb on Japan. 

To win, you must be inpenetrable, not a constantly invading force leaving the "homeland" at risk. And those of you who want to keep our forces overseas are the ones who leave the rest of us vulnerable.

You want to kill? You go buy the goddamned tickets to fly overseas and shoot some people. Leave me out of your bull$#@!.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> The Allies were just in WW II.
> 
> Just in case you haven't figured out I disagree with our premise, and there is nothing left to discuss.
> 
> you and Neville chamberlain can discuss in heaven how the world should have turned the other cheek to the Nazis and imperial Japanese.  I bet there will be about 6 million Jews, 3 million Chinese, and 20 million Russians and Slavs who will kick your ass straight to hell for it, though.


You think Chamberlain was wrong to keep avoid war in 38? His only mistake was going to war for Poland.

----------


## surf

i'm gonna try and kill this thread again w/wmd if necessary. think i'm losing my curse....

edit: doesn't belong on this forum

----------


## UWDude

> And you'd be quite guilty of mass-murder if you dropped an A-bomb on Japan.


No, I'd be responsible for ending the war that killed millions of _truly_ innocent people, (civilian and soldier) because of the Japanese.




> To win, you must be inpenetrable, not a constantly invading force leaving the "homeland" at risk.


Sounds like you should be on the pre-ww II french military planning team.




> And those of you who want to keep our forces overseas are the ones who leave the rest of us vulnerable.


Those of who?  who here is advocating overseas empire?

Did you already forget what war I am talking about... again?




> You want to kill?


No, no i don't.




> You go buy the goddamned tickets to fly overseas and shoot some people. Leave me out of your bull$#@!.


What the $#@! does this have to do with WW II?

Do you think America could have won World War II and defeated the Japanese and Nazis by simply sitting in its own territories and making a bunch of anti-aircraft batteries?

Do you think Hitler would have stopped once he conquered Europe, Asia and Africa?
In the real world, war and empire and megalomania doesn't work that way.

----------


## J_White

in the real world, all acts by victors of wars or those in power in the current world structure are always justified and "legal".
only when the power shifts, those actions could be assessed more objectively and judged on moral grounds.
imagine if Japan or Germany had done what US did, that would add to how "evil" they were.
but since this was done by USA, which is still the most powerful country in some sense, people don't even think about this being bad.

----------


## UWDude

> You think Chamberlain was wrong to keep avoid war in 38? His only mistake was going to war for Poland.


Wow.  Just another agree to disagree.

----------


## UWDude

> in the real world, all acts by victors of wars or those in power in the current world structure are always justified and "legal".
> only when the power shifts, those actions could be assessed more objectively and judged on moral grounds.
> imagine if Japan or Germany had done what US did, that would add to how "evil" they were.
> but since this was done by USA, which is still the most powerful country in some sense, people don't even think about this being bad.


Lots of people condemn the United states for nuking Japan.

And yes, had Germany or Japan nuked a city, it would only add to their evil. Because they were evil, and they started the war in the first place.  Just like if the Untied States declared wart on Iran, and Iran sunk the American fleets, took over Iraq and Afghanistan, bombed Israel into submission, and started bombing American cities, and instead of surrendering, America nuked Tehran... ...it would still add to America's evil, not Iran's, because America was wrong to start the war in the first place.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> i'm gonna try and kill this thread again w/wmd if necessary. think i'm losing my curse....
> 
> edit: doesn't belong on this forum


Oh, I think ad absurdum discussions are _very_ useful and _do_ belong on the forum. The problem is that people are not treating them as absurd as they need to be and relegating them to the merely academic the way they ought.  Folks are taking the arguments personally when not one of us was alive when this happened, not one of us really know enough to be totally conclusive, and nothing like this situation will ever happen again for as long as any of us live.

People are freaking out for no good reason.  None of us, not a single one of us can possibly know all of the factors that came together to drive our decisions in WW2.  We can speculate _and that's good!_  But to treat any opinion here on WW2 as gospel (if you disagree with me you are a blood-thirsty/pacifist heathen) is irrational.  It's like coming to blows over why the Roman Empire fell.  

The nature of the world today pretty much denies the possibility of a major conventional war ever happening again in our lifetimes, so the discussion doesn't even have any bearing on how we will act in the future.  

All of that means that this discussion can only ever be academic.  

To go all apoplectic over a discussion that can only _ever_ be academic is, well, not our finest hour.

----------


## eduardo89

> You think Chamberlain was wrong to keep avoid war in 38? His only mistake was going to war for Poland.


I agree. The UK and France should have had a non-interventionist foreign policy and stayed out of Poland's problems.

----------


## RickyJ

> in the real world, all acts by victors of wars or those in power in the current world structure are always justified and "legal".
> only when the power shifts, those actions could be assessed more objectively and judged on moral grounds.
> imagine if Japan or Germany had done what US did, that would add to how "evil" they were.
> but since this was done by USA, which is still the most powerful country in some sense, people don't even think about this being bad.


The victors write the history books and people like UWDude read them and think they know what happened at that time. Just think about this, the news media today distorts the truth of even current events, it is much easier to distort the events of about 70 years ago, especially since little of it was actually recorded audio and/or video. If the media has no problem distorting the truth about current events today, then what makes anyone think they had a problem doing it 70 years ago?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

People relishing in the thought of Dresden being bombed is not a fine hour. A member here has advocated, (for lack of a better word) GITMO prisoners be executed as a humanitarian approach. This thread is a mental note of whose posts I'll be taking with a further grain of salt.

I understand the few who did not vote over the wording of the question. That's about it. To claim the NAP is pacifist or any of the other mainstream media bull$#@!, while simultaneously espousing Lenin's views is shocking.

One of those threads where people should remember the names.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> People relishing in the thought of Dresden being bombed is not a fine hour. A member here has advocated, (for lack of a better word) GITMO prisoners be executed as a humanitarian approach. This thread is a mental note of whose posts I'll be taking with a further grain of salt.
> 
> I understand the few who did not vote over the wording of the question. That's about it. To claim the NAP is pacifist or any of the other mainstream media bull$#@!, while simultaneously espousing Lenin's views is shocking.
> 
> One of those threads where people should remember the names.


Indeed.  


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kcchiefs6465 again


  Sorry I'm out of ammo for you, sir.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> The nature of the world today pretty much denies the possibility of a major conventional war ever happening again in our lifetimes, so the discussion doesn't even have any bearing on how we will act in the future.


I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise. I foresee non-conventional situations where people will have to decide whether to kill "innocent civilians", for the sake of stopping or deterring things which everyone here might agree are undesirable. It's not physically impossible or even unlikely. Many here express absolute rejection of the idea, but not one of them has come to terms, at least in this thread, with the consequences of a policy that rewards the utilization of human shields. To the extent that their views shapes policy, policy will be answered by an increase in the utilization of human shields.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The victors write the history books and people like UWDude read them and think they know what happened at that time. Just think about this, the news media today distorts the truth of even current events, it is much easier to distort the events of about 70 years ago, especially since little of it was actually recorded audio and/or video. If the media has no problem distorting the truth about current events today, then what makes anyone think they had a problem doing it 70 years ago?


_Correct!_  But really, do you think you know what happened in the 1940's any better than he does?

I mean, that's kinda the point I've been trying to make for most of this thread.  _He_ don't know, _I_ don't know and _you_ don't know either.  None of us were around then.  Not a single damn one of us was around then.  

This discussion could be great if it were purely academic.  Taking _any_ of it personally is just dumb.  

If this discussion were purely academic it would be awesome.  Taking this discussion personally makes the whole thing not just worthless, but entirely counterproductive.  And there is the difference, and one of the problems we have to deal with.  We legitimately _need_ to be able to talk about this kind of stuff without taking it personally.  

Nobody, not one single soul on these forums was alive when all this stuff happened, so all we have is the record.  Nobody, not one single soul on these forums will ever experience anything like WW2 in their entire lifetimes.  Understand that.  OWN that.  

We know that the winners write the history books, and we know that the narrative we have been told is one-sided.  

What we have to do is stop taking $#@! personally because someone thinks A, B, or C regarding events that happened before any of us were born and which will never happen again as long as we live.

If we could take all of this as a friendly academic debate it would be fruitful.  If we insist on taking all of this personally it will be fruitless and counterproductive.

That is my point more than anything else I have said in this thread yet.

Will we EVER face a Hiroshima/Nagasaki situation again in the next 100 years?  Um, no.  Not as far as I can see.

See, as I have said more than once in this thread, I think dropping the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary and a bad idea, yet I am being handled as a warmonger because I refuse to condemn people who think otherwise.

Maybe Nagasaki was evil as I believe.  Maybe Nagasaki was necessary as others believe.  I don't pretend to be able to make such judgements as I wasn't there and I know that _ANY_ information we have about it is subject to the distortions of those who actually were there, and who are long dead now.

That's the point I'm trying to make.  You all have driven me to freaken drink with all this hate and now I'm damn drunk, but not one damn one of us knows what was going on in 1943 -- 70 years ago -- and to pretend that we do know what was going on then is just dumb.

You'd have to be around 20 to grasp current events, and so we really have any 90 year olds hanging around this thread or even these forums?  I kinda doubt it.

So some guy is an $#@! about some event that not one of us has ever experienced.  Or ever will experience for as long as we all shall live.  Boo freakin hoo.  

If we can't treat it as purely academic, then we shouldn't be treating it at all.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You can't march an Army behind human shields.


You can place command and control centers behind human shields.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise. I foresee non-conventional situations where people will have to decide whether to kill "innocent civilians", for the sake of stopping or deterring things which everyone here might agree are undesirable. It's not physically impossible or even unlikely. Many here express absolute rejection of the idea, but not one of them has come to terms, at least in this thread, with the consequences of a policy that rewards the utilization of human shields. To the extent that their views shapes policy, policy will be answered by an increase in the utilization of human shields.


I'm talking about major conventional warfare that leads to the deployment of WMD's.  

I have already clarified my position on human shields, but to clarify further the more we tolerate people using human shields, the more such a disgusting practice will be used.  Someone who actually uses human shields needs to die slowly and painfully to discourage such horrific behavior going forward.  Anyone willing to exploit the death of "innocents" deserves all the horror we can give them.

But what I am saying is the math alone makes future massive conventional warfare impossible.  There will only ever be asymmetric warfare for as long as any of us reading this will live.  So the whole discussion is moot (by the proper definition of moot) and can only be academic.  Hell, if I weren't drunk I wouldn't even be responding to you since you like to rip things from context and use that to create division and outrage, but in the realm of REALITY there will never be anything but asymmetric warfare for as long as any of us will live based on the distorted spending on military budgets alone.

As to "innocents" there is no such thing.  The only true 'innocent' who ever lived was crucified on Golgotha.  So talking about 'innocents' is really a red herring from the start.  Maybe someone is friendly to the opposition, or maybe they are just unsupportive of the aggressors, but nobody is really 'innocent.'

I agree with you that tolerating the use of human shields will lead to the proliferation of human shields, and that we cannot conscience.  The use of human shields ALONE, placing your own life above that of the alleged 'innocents' in and of itself deserves a horrible and tortuous death.  

I am a strong non-interventionist, but someone uses a human shield and I'm liable to pick up a rifle on my own accord and go introduce the bastard to a bit of justice.

Doesn't mean I'm gonna advocate for any _government_ to do such a thing.  

Non-intervention also means we don't prevent individuals from dealing justice where justice is needed.  We don't use government taxation revenue or force to go after that Kony guy, but if a group of American citizens decided on their own to take Kony out we have neither right nor cause to prevent them.

When I say "The nature of the world today pretty much denies the possibility of a major conventional war ever happening again in our lifetimes," I'm talking pure math.  America will either be the party with overwhelming strength, or if there is an utter collapse we will be the party who is massively outgunned. Asymmetric is the only kind of war we will ever know, whether we are on the strong side or the weak side, the disparity is such that  in ANY war, asymmetric is a given.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [...] do you think you know what happened in the 1940's any better than he does?


There manifestly are some people who "know better" than some others "what happened" with regard to any given historical period or event.
(Which is not to say that this is the case regarding the two particular people to whom you are referring.)




> I mean, that's kinda the point I've been trying to make for most of this thread.  _He_ don't know, _I_ don't know and _you_ don't know either.  None of us were around then.  Not a single damn one of us was around then. [...]


I don't understand what being "around then" or not has to do with it. Were the people who were "around then" any more well-informed or knowledgeable (now or then) about contemporary matters beyond the level of "current affairs?" In fact, barring the invention of a time machine, not having been "around then" (whenever "then" might be) is very probably the superior position from which to understand and analyze historical eras & events. For one thing, the distance of time and lack of any direct involvement will, _ceteris paribus_, allow for greater objectivity. For another thing, it provides for the possibility of a much wider array of information sources. For example, we now have access to Soviet archives, giving us a much more complete "view" on a wide variety of things. Such illuminating materials are very often simply not available to folks who were "around then." (There are rare exceptions to this - such as that involved in the tragic loss of the contents of the Library at Alexandria.) Those who were "around then" did have the advantage of direct, first-hand observation - but that is an extremely limited thing.

Omiscience is not an option (now or then) - and there is no "analyze by" expiration date on history. Thus, not having been "around then" does not seem to be a compelling argument against employing historical analyses as illustrations in debates involving normative assertions.

----------


## UWDude

> Taking _any_ of it personally is just dumb.


The only thing I take personally is the constant mis-characterization of my arguments, or the interjections of the same opinions over and over again by different people without reading the comments made first.  "geeze, you thank nukin' japaneez wuz justified, den you must want to kill all der arabs... derr herr...."

$#@!ing stupid trolls.




> There manifestly are some people who "know better" than some others "what happened" with regard to any given historical period or event.


But not a history major, of course.  



> People relishing in the thought of Dresden being bombed is not a fine hour.


$#@! the Nazis.  $#@! them, and $#@! their delusions of superiority.  They got turned to ash for their arrogance.  Justice was served. 

And you know what? Besides and incredibly weak "WW II was not a just war", without any explanation, _at all_ as to why it was not a just war...

..nobody has answered the questions I have asked about the relative worth of a soldier compared to a civilian, especially of the value of a soldier fighting an empire like the Nazi or Japanese empire, compared to the value of a imperialist Japanese or Nazi civilian. 

I have read a lot of gnashing of teeth and frustration, but nobody has yet dared to answer why a soldier fighting for a good cause is worth less than a civilian supporting an evil cause.

And there is a reason for that.  I'm sure a couple people have tried to start typing out an explanation, only to be stumbled by their own logic.

Yeah, it really cuts at people's sense of morality, but it is quite logical at the core, because the sense of morality and outrage is built on nothing more than the cliche of "innocent civilians".  Once you break down the cliche, it is revealed to be nothing more than an empty platitude.    

Millions of heroes died in WW II because of the actions of millions of cowards and sick, evil $#@!s, now being pitied by some revisionists as "innocent civilians".  The vast majority of both Japanese and German civilians were anything but innocent.  They loved their victory parades and great leaders when they were winning, and they treated objectors and pacifists as traitors,  threw them in prison camps for daring to think that their imperialist adventurism was wrong.  Tortured and executed them.  These "innocent civilians" were having too good of a time enjoying the fruits of victory to listen to their fellow countrymen who dared to tell them the spoils of war came from murder, or that constant victory was not guaranteed.  Oh no, these "innocent civilians" you claim inhabited these cities gladly lashed out and ostracized the "unpatriotic".  And none of them would have died if they didn't start the war in the first place.

This revisionism comes from a hatred of the United States.  And although the Untied States deserves hatred for almost everything it has done in its past, winning world war II is one thing it did right.  even the United States today, for all its faults, is a better leader of the world than the Nazis or the Imperialist Japanese would have been.  They were brutal, in your face, unapologetic racists and exterminationists.  They were NOT FRIENDLY PEOPLE.

And I've watched dozens of hours of propaganda films, both German and Japanese, as well as read hundreds of primary documents by citizens.  I think I have a pretty good idea of the political climate in those countries.  Dissent was not tolerated, both by the government, and by the people of those countries. 




> The victors write the history books and people like UWDude read them and think they know what happened at that time. Just think about this, the news media today distorts the truth of even current events, it is much easier to distort the events of about 70 years ago, especially since little of it was actually recorded audio and/or video. If the media has no problem distorting the truth about current events today, then what makes anyone think they had a problem doing it 70 years ago?


Yeah?  And how much study have you done on the topic?  I took a course on Modern German history, that focused on everything from 1871 - 2008, with a interesting focus on sexuality, as it happened to be the professor's specialty.  Regardless, it lent a much more broad understanding of German society than one gets from watching the History channel for 8 years straight, I am sure.  Because German culture was a lot more than Bismark, Kaiser Wilhelm, the Wiemar republic and Hitler... ...the things everyone thinks they know everything about because they have watched a handful, maybe even dozens of documentaries on the History channel.  So tell me, Who are you, to imply I am some stupid ignoramus that never took into consideration history is written by the victors?  Have you never read any of my other posts about American actions in the past?  Because I certainly am no fan of the actions of the United States, at almost any period in history.  

I understand propaganda can be tricky.  But Nazi propaganda is available as well as western propaganda, and I have done analysis on both many times.  

But don't tell me I don't understand because I wasn't there.  That may be so, but I sure as hell am not going to let you tell me you know any better.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

$#@! your delusions of superiority.

You espouse nothing less than nationalistic so called 'superiority' based on which coordinates one was born.

Ash for arrogance, god forbid it be ash for ignorance.

God forbid you didn't have your head in the binding of the victor's yearbook.

But you're schooled, you say? ... Noted.

Sophisticated points of view are always interesting. Justifications and all. But you know the 38th Parallel..? the Raping of Nanking? King Tut? I am glad your high horse has been buried so deep in horse$#@! as to you actually being able to speak common to us lowly folk.

----------


## UWDude

> $#@! your delusions of superiority.
> 
> You espouse nothing less than nationalistic so called 'superiority' based on which coordinates one was born.


what bull$#@!.  Once again I refer you to many of my posts about American history.  This has nothing to do with where the peopel were born, and everything to do with what those people did, and the wars they supported.  I can't beleive I am being called a nationalist, because I take the side of America in ONE instance.  That's some silliness.




> Ash for arrogance, god forbid it be ash for ignorance.


arrogance and ignorance often go hand in hand.



> God forbid you didn't have your head in the binding of the victor's yearbook.


God forbid you read a book.



> But you're schooled, you say? ... Noted.


Yeah, I am.  Got a problem with that?  




> Sophisticated points of view are always interesting. Justifications and all. But you know the 38th Parallel..? the Raping of Nanking? King Tut? I am glad your high horse has been buried so deep in horse$#@! as to you actually being able to speak common to us lowly folk.


Why are you getting offended?  I was just responding to the person that insinuated all I had done was read Western propaganda, and to the other various people on this thread that keep claiming I must not know $#@! about WW II or history for that matter because they disagree with my viewpoint on the use of atomic weapons on Japan.

So don't get your panties in a knot, just be sure not to try and call me stupid when I actually have read more than a handful of books on the subject.


Why can't any of you answer my question?

Why is a soldier's life worth less than a civilian's life?

Why is a child's life worth more than a soldier's life?

How much longer am I going to have to sit here and read a bunch of angry bull$#@! before I find someone willing to offer a reasonable answer?

So far, the best anyone can muster is "WW II was not a moral war", which is laughable, and crumbles under the simplest of counters.  WW II was just, and a war that had to be fought.

So I'm still waiting for the explanation.

I am sure the next reply will not have an explanation, but will have more insults and insinuations of my ignorance and immorality though.  I know I can count on you guys for that.  Unless of course, the next poster wants to troll hard, then it will be a bunch of strawmen about me wanting to kill people and establish a worldwide American empire.


Still no answer?

Just more gnashing of teeth and anger?

Anybody dare to try and answer the question?

----------


## otherone

> Why can't any of you answer my question?
> 
> Why is a soldier's life worth less than a civilian's life?
> 
> Why is a child's life worth more than a soldier's life?
> 
> How much longer am I going to have to sit here and read a bunch of angry bull$#@! before I find someone willing to offer a reasonable answer?
> 
> So far, the best anyone can muster is "WW II was not a moral war", which is laughable, and crumbles under the simplest of counters.  WW II was just, and a war that had to be fought.
> ...


A child's life is no more or less valuable than a soldier's life.  You speak of the war in a grand scale, like nation's are chess players and humans are pawns.  You say that a nation is moral when it throw's it's own inhabitants into a meat grinder against their will, to fight against another nation.  You justify slaughtering your OWN countrymen based on what your overlords tell you is happening half a planet away.  You call your countrymen cowards because they must be drafted to die in a swamp in the pacific based on what tptb tell you.  Claiming people accuse you of wanting an American empire is building your own strawman.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> $#@!ing stupid trolls.
> 
> $#@! the Nazis.  $#@! them, and $#@! their delusions of superiority.  They got turned to ash for their arrogance.  Justice was served. 
> 
> And you know what? Besides and incredibly weak "WW II was not a just war", without any explanation, _at all_ as to why it was not a just war...
> 
> ..nobody has answered the questions I have asked about the relative worth of a soldier compared to a civilian, especially of the value of a soldier fighting an empire like the Nazi or Japanese empire, compared to the value of a imperialist Japanese or Nazi civilian.


Excuse me. Could you please answer a simple question:

Do you think the US had a moral duty to save the European Jews from genocide? Would you go to war with Germany for this reason alone?

EDIT: He left? What a letdown.

----------


## Contumacious

> ..nobody has answered the questions I have asked about the relative worth of a soldier compared to a civilian, especially of the value of a soldier fighting an empire like the Nazi or Japanese empire, compared to the value of a imperialist Japanese or Nazi civilian. 
> 
> .


There is no worst blind person than he doesn't want to see.

Pearl Harbor was a false flag operation whereby FDR used the Japanese as a pretext to enter WWII. To compound an already criminal act by murdering millions of innocent bystanders is immoral beyond measure.

.

----------


## AuH20

> The victors write the history books and people like UWDude read them and think they know what happened at that time. Just think about this, the news media today distorts the truth of even current events, it is much easier to distort the events of about 70 years ago, especially since little of it was actually recorded audio and/or video. If the media has no problem distorting the truth about current events today, then what makes anyone think they had a problem doing it 70 years ago?


Actually, the same revisionism & distortion comes from the absolute peace side (take the purported deaths at Dresden as well that were inflated). Changing and altering facts to justify their position of pacificism at all costs. Secondly, we have letters and government documents authentic to that critical time period documenting the arduous task at hand that faced the U.S. military command as well as the POTUS leading up to Operation Downfall and Operation Olympic.

----------


## JK/SEA

We're the bad guys. Wake the $#@! up.

----------


## juleswin

> Voted no.
> 
> But there are many who attempt to justify it.


I hope you are not talking about my friend John Stossel, he means well

----------


## twomp

> Why can't any of you answer my question?
> 
> Why is a soldier's life worth less than a civilian's life?
> 
> Why is a child's life worth more than a soldier's life?
> 
> How much longer am I going to have to sit here and read a bunch of angry bull$#@! before I find someone willing to offer a reasonable answer?
> 
> So far, the best anyone can muster is "WW II was not a moral war", which is laughable, and crumbles under the simplest of counters.  WW II was just, and a war that had to be fought.
> ...


If you need people to explain to you why killing a child or an innocent civilian is morally worse then killing a soldier then there is nothing anyone can say here to change your mind. You should maybe consider working for Lindsey Graham or John McCain, I bet they could use more people defending their war mongering ways. War is peace right?

----------


## twomp

> No, I'd be responsible for ending the war that killed millions of _truly_ innocent people, (civilian and soldier) because of the Japanese.


And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace!

----------


## JK/SEA

> And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace!



can't really blame him. History classes in school were basically brainwashing tactic strategies, especially if the teacher was good looking and had a good personality. Yes, we had young sheep back in my day...except me. Might explain my loner status back then.

I wrote an essay on that very subject in High School. My paper was given an A plus, but the School District kept it. This was in 1968.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> If you need people to explain to you why killing a child or an innocent civilian is morally worse then killing a soldier then there is nothing anyone can say here to change your mind. You should maybe consider working for Lindsey Graham or John McCain, I bet they could use more people defending their war mongering ways. War is peace right?





> And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace!


I could not have said it better myself, if I wanted aggressors utilizing human shields to enjoy free reign.

----------


## AuH20

> And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace!


The contemporary Middle East is in no way comparable to the days leading up Hiroshima. There is no untenable life or death scenario playing out there.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Actually, the same revisionism & distortion comes from the absolute peace side (take the purported deaths at Dresden as well that were inflated). Changing and altering facts to justify their position of pacificism at all costs. Secondly, we have letters and government documents authentic to that critical time period documenting the arduous task at hand that faced the U.S. military command as well as the POTUS leading up to Operation Downfall and Operation Olympic.



you voted YES and NO in the poll?....

wtf?

----------


## AuH20

> you voted YES and NO in the poll?....
> 
> wtf?


I voted yes, but would have liked to have a better worded question.

----------


## twomp

> The contemporary Middle East is in no way comparable to the days leading up Hiroshima. There is no untenable life or death scenario playing out there.


The point is still the same. The argument that bombing people will save lives. Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity. You can go back as far as you want but if you look back in time, kings, queens, presidents, governments have always used the excuse of "saving lives" to go to war. They never say, "hey we are about to go to war to take land or make money for the weapon makers." No, they tell their people that they have to go to war because their lives are being threatened and going to war is the only way to achieve peace. 

The same exact line some of you are trying to feed us now. They did it to SAVE LIVES.

Oh wait let me guess, this time it's different.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I voted yes, but would have liked to have a better worded question.



uhh...you voted NO and yes....

you seem confused, but perhaps you can be the one that represents the typical voter. lol.

----------


## AuH20

> uhh...you voted NO and yes....
> 
> you seem confused, but perhaps you can be the one that represents the typical voter. lol.


There is another with a similar tag as mine.

----------


## JK/SEA

> There is another with a similar tag as mine.


how is that possible? they're identical.

admin?

----------


## AuH20

> The point is still the same. The argument that bombing people will save lives. Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity. You can go back as far as you want but if you look back in time, kings, queens, presidents, governments have always used the excuse of "saving lives" to go to war. They never say, "hey we are about to go to war to take land or make money for the weapon makers." No, they tell their people that they have to go to war because their lives are being threatened and going to war is the only way to achieve peace. 
> 
> The same exact line some of you are trying to feed us now. They did it to SAVE LIVES.
> 
> Oh wait let me guess, this time it's different.


Well, they are being deceitful to advance their goals. In 90% of the cases, aggressive bombing campaigns do not save lives. Many modern-day proponents dress up their agenda in the noble cloak of WW2 conflating those unique worldwide threats to relatively impotent nations like Iran or Iraq. Listen to Hannity. Everyday is June 6th, 1944 to him. _We need to fight evil!!!!_ Hogwash I say. The facts on the ground prove otherwise.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@UWDude-

At the end of the day, I'm just curious, what made Stalin any better than Hitler, in your mind?

I'm not sure if Eduardo was serious about joining the Germans, but he makes an interesting point, namely, that the Stalinists WERE evil.  Mind you, I'd claim FDR was evil too, although there I can see a couple orders of magnitude difference between him and Adolf.  But Hitler and Stalin were pretty similar, actually Stalin killed even more people.

I have to question the premise that Adolf Hitler's intent was to take over the entire world.  And I seriously have to question the premise that, even if he wanted to do that, he could have.

I'd suggest that the fact that Hitler was willing to send  Jews to the US is evidence that his intent was not to take over the entire world.  Otherwise, why would he deport any of them?  Why not just kill them all immediately?  I think his goal was more likely to create a "Racially pure" Europe than to conquer the whole world.

I suppose you could argue that the murder of millions is in and of itself a reason  to get involved... but once you concede that, it becomes a purely mathematical game, how many people have to be murdered before you get involved?

My take is this... preemptive wars are bad.  Yes, we were attacked in 1941, but we could have made peace before Hiroshima, or avoided Pearl Harbor by not putting sanctions on Japan.  Since I do not believe sanctions are inherently an act of war, I would agree that Japan is the aggressor, but I would also say that we should have desired peace enough not to provoke them, if that makes sense.

So yes, I do see some difference between WWII or Iraq, but I still oppose both of them.


The extreme bitterness among most of the people in this thread is really sad.  I agree with Gunny there.

That said... my understanding of libertarian theory is... whoever dropped the bomb, and whoever ordered it, should have been  executed for it, whether you claim that violation of the NAP is somehow "Justified" or not, there should still be punished for it.  YMMV.

----------


## CCTelander

> how is that possible? they're identical.
> 
> admin?



I thought so too, at first. Upon closer examination, however, it turns out that the one who voted " no" ends with a capital "o," while the one voting "yes" ends with a zero. Confusing.

----------


## BamaAla

I love the folks who have staked out their position as our moral superiors flinging around the thought-crime claims in this thread. The best part is that they do so at the same time as saying "I can't believe I would see this on a RP forum."

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity.


Imprisoning kidnappers is like having sex for virginity.

----------


## Lucille

Anthony Gregory:

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the U.S. Terror State
http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/...-terror-state/




> Being a U.S. war criminal means never having to say sorry. Paul Tibbets, the man who flew the Enola Gay and destroyed Hiroshima, lived to the impressive age of 92 without publicly expressing guilt for what he had done. He had even reenacted his infamous mission at a 1976 Texas air show, complete with a mushroom cloud, and later said he never meant this to be offensive. In contrast, he called it a “damn big insult” when the Smithsonian planned an exhibit in 1995 showing some of the damage the bombing caused.
> 
> We might understand a man not coming to terms with his most important contribution to human history being such a destructive act. But what about the rest of the country?
> 
> It’s sickening that Americans even debate the atomic bombings, as they do every year in early August...


Terrorism by Any Reasonable Definition
http://blog.independent.org/2012/08/...le-definition/




> ...The vast immorality and collectivism of the 20th century, most notably seen in the fascist and communist regimes that sought total control of society and the total subordination of individual liberty, were also on full display in the enterprise of total war, which the U.S. came to adopt as policy in World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. It should be no surprise that the main U.S. culprits behind these war policies were the very liberal Democrats who favored expansionist state power at home—FDR, Truman, and LBJ—although, of course, conservative Republicans soon enough proved just as willing to participate in and advocate such war collectivism.
> 
> In particular, the U.S. in the 20th century came to dominate the strategy of killing people from the sky, as almost every major bombing mission was done under U.S. auspices in the post-War period. In these bombings from World War II through the war in Indochina, the U.S. killed millions of civilians with firebombings, chemical warfare, the targeted destruction of dams and other civilian infrastructure. Remnants of this policy were apparent in the U.S. policy toward Iraq from 1990 through the second Gulf War, when water treatment facilities were destroyed and civilians were deprived of clean water, food, and medicine with the express purpose of fomenting revolution.
> 
> The only way to regard the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and so many other U.S. war campaigns, as anything other than state terrorism, is to define the concept in such an absurdly narrow way as to categorically exempt the U.S. from the definition out of pure convenience. If nuclear holocaust inflicted upon innocent civilians for the purpose of securing a diplomatic result is not terrorism, then there is no such thing.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I love the folks who have staked out their position as our moral superiors flinging around the thought-crime claims in this thread. The best part is that they do so at the same time as saying "I can't believe I would see this on a RP forum."


Does Ron Paul stand for freedom of thought? Some moderators on this "RP forum" don't:




> Someone who supports [x] should not be posting under a forum that bears Ron and Rand Paul's name.  Just recently we've had news reporters quote something from this forum and use it against us. Is this *really* up for debate?  If you really can't see how that can only hurt us, *not* help us, then you are indeed a troll, I will say it again.

----------


## UWDude

> If you need people to explain to you why killing a child or an innocent civilian is morally worse then killing a soldier then there is nothing anyone can say here to change your mind. You should maybe consider working for Lindsey Graham or John McCain, I bet they could use more people defending their war mongering ways. War is peace right?


I was expecting this one.  

"well, If I need to explain to you why it is worse to kill a child than a soldier, then there is no helping you".

It sounds nice and cliche, just like "innocent civilians" but still doesn't answer the question.




> And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace!


There are circumstances where it is true.

And of course, I already mentioned jerks like you why I hate the $#@!ing trolls here.  Eight posts up, I write:




> The only thing I take personally is the constant mis-characterization of my arguments, or the interjections of the same opinions over and over again by different people without reading the comments made first. "geeze, you thank nukin' japaneez wuz justified, den you must want to kill all der arabs... derr herr...."


and what do you know, here comes twomp, to keep up the stupid troll bull$#@!.




> And there it is again. The warmongers favorite line. We bomb people to SAVE LIVES! It's why we are in the middle east right? To save lives? Gotta get em before they get us! War is Peace! derr arabs der herrr,....





> They never say, "hey we are about to go to war to take land or make money for the weapon makers."


Yes they do.  In fact. that is exactly what Japan and Germany said they were bombing people for, glory and empire. Hitler made it clear he was doing it for _lebensraum_.  And what was Japan's reasoning for bombing Pearl Harbor?  Was it justified?





> can't really blame him. History classes in school were basically brainwashing tactic strategies, especially if the teacher was good looking and had a good personality.


The old "oh he's educated, must mean he is brainwashed" routine.  
What a cop-out.  I also like the insinuation I've had "a" history teacher.  LoL.  Try about 25 or more.

Did high school and college teach me to be opposed to American foreign policy in almost every other historical situation?
Did they teach me that 9/11 was an inside job?  Did they teach me that politics are rigged beyond belief?
No, dude, sorry, I have looked at the facts, and come to my own conclusion on this one.

History classes and teachers are far more likely to bemoan the loss of civilian life as if it is a greater tragedy than the loss of soldier's lives, not the other way around.  You guys are the ones with the majoritarian position written through brainwashing that "civilian" necessarily means "innocent".




....
Oh, one more thing, NOBODY HAS ANSWERED WHY A CIVILIAN'S LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN A SOLDIER'S.

----------


## twomp

> I was expecting this one.  
> 
> "well, If I need to explain to you why it is worse to kill a child than a soldier, then there is no helping you".
> 
> It sounds nice and cliche, just like "innocent civilians" but still doesn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> There are circumstances where it is true.
> ...


Translation: I have no legit reply so I will start insulting people. Why you so mad bro?

----------


## UWDude

> Translation: I have no legit reply so I will start insulting people. Why you so mad bro?


A legit reply to what?  And yeah I'm insulting you, you didn't say anything legitimate to reply to.  And it's not like you haven't been insulting with every post.  

why am I so mad?




> The only thing I take personally is the constant mis-characterization of my arguments, or the interjections of the same opinions over and over again by different people without reading the comments made first. "geeze, you thank nukin' japaneez wuz justified, den you must want to kill all der arabs... derr herr...."
> 
> $#@!ing stupid trolls.


from http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5163978

That's what you just did, so that's why?

Any more questions, brah?

And I like how in your reply, you still didn't answer my question about civilians and soldiers.  You should work on it.

----------


## UWDude

> @UWDude-
> 
> At the end of the day, I'm just curious, what made Stalin any better than Hitler, in your mind?
> 
> I'm not sure if Eduardo was serious about joining the Germans, but he makes an interesting point, namely, that the Stalinists WERE evil.  Mind you, I'd claim FDR was evil too, although there I can see a couple orders of magnitude difference between him and Adolf.  But Hitler and Stalin were pretty similar, actually Stalin killed even more people.
> 
> I have to question the premise that Adolf Hitler's intent was to take over the entire world.  And I seriously have to question the premise that, even if he wanted to do that, he could have.
> 
> I'd suggest that the fact that Hitler was willing to send  Jews to the US is evidence that his intent was not to take over the entire world.  Otherwise, why would he deport any of them?  Why not just kill them all immediately?  I think his goal was more likely to create a "Racially pure" Europe than to conquer the whole world.
> ...


God bless you FF... ...your posts are always way too long and too complex to reply to when I have to get to work, but I'll get back to you.

Long story short, Stalin and Britain and the United states and France were not angels, but were better than the Nazis and Japan.

----------


## twomp

> A legit reply to what?
> 
> why am I so mad?
> 
> 
> 
> from http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5163978
> 
> That's why?
> ...


I don't know why you're mad. That's why I'm asking. You are trying to convince anti-war people that nuking innocent people is somehow a good thing or WAS a good thing. Then you get agitated when the majority of people here disagree which you should have known would happen. You then start calling people names.

I suggest you take your argument to neoconforums.com or something maybe where it may be better received.

----------


## pcosmar

> can't really blame him. History classes in school were basically brainwashing tactic strategies,

----------


## Philhelm



----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I have read a lot of gnashing of teeth and frustration, but nobody has yet dared to answer why a soldier fighting for a good cause is worth less than a civilian supporting an evil cause.


 A soldier is engaged in an activity called warfare.  In this activity, one would normally assume many participants will die.  That is the purpose of the activity.  By fighting a war, he assumes certain risks.

The civilian is not fighting a war.  He is going about peaceful endeavors.  He should not be slaughtered, regardless of which regime he had the bad luck to be born under.

Of course, the total elimination of warfare would be the just situation.  Warfare is an illegitimate activity.  It should be abolished.  This would possibly result were we to eliminate states, but until then the fences and limits of just war rules mitigate the damage caused.  One of those rules is: don't slaughter civilians.

----------


## pcosmar

> .
> 
> ...
> Oh, one more thing, NOBODY HAS ANSWERED WHY A CIVILIAN'S LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN A SOLDIER'S.


Soldiers are supposed to be killed in war. That is their purpose.

Civilians are not.
Civilian casualties are to be avoided..
Targeting Civilians is a WAR CRIME. This is understood worldwide. And has been for centuries.

Why *you* can not understand this is curious. but something is bent.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Long story short, Stalin and Britain and the United states and France were not angels, but were better than the Nazis and Japan.


 I do not think that is true.  Do you have any data that would back this up (death tolls, rape tolls, etc.)?  Or any reason whatsoever to believe it?

If you do not have any reason which you can clearly and succinctly present, you should please consider that your belief is wrong.

----------


## UWDude

> I don't know why you're mad. That's why I'm asking. You are trying to convince anti-war people that nuking innocent people is somehow a good thing or WAS a good thing. Then you get agitated when the majority of people here disagree which you should have known would happen. You then start calling people names.
> 
> I suggest you take your argument to neoconforums.com or something maybe where it may be better received.


"innocent"

There you go again.

I'm mad because many of you trolls are obviously not even reading what I am writing.

I'm done with you fools on this topic.  I'll answer Freedom Fanatic later.  He is the only one that has any kind of style to show he wants to have a debate, and not a typical RPF flame war.  I'll answer Helmuth too.

rest of you can go $#@! yourselves.

----------


## twomp

> "innocent"
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> I'm mad because many of you trolls are obviously not even reading what I am writing.
> 
> I'm done with you fools on this topic.  I'll answer Freedom Fanatic later.  He is the only one that has any kind of style to show he wants to have a debate, and not a typical RPF flame war.  I'll answer Helmuth too.


Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You call it a flame war when you are the one throwing the majority of the insults. That's funny.

----------


## Anti Federalist

tl;dr

No.

This:




> Oh, I think ad absurdum discussions are _very_ useful and _do_ belong on the forum. The problem is that people are not treating them as absurd as they need to be and relegating them to the merely academic the way they ought.  Folks are taking the arguments personally when not one of us was alive when this happened, not one of us really know enough to be totally conclusive, and nothing like this situation will ever happen again for as long as any of us live.
> 
> People are freaking out for no good reason.  None of us, not a single one of us can possibly know all of the factors that came together to drive our decisions in WW2.  We can speculate _and that's good!_  But to treat any opinion here on WW2 as gospel (if you disagree with me you are a blood-thirsty/pacifist heathen) is irrational.  It's like coming to blows over why the Roman Empire fell.  
> 
> The nature of the world today pretty much denies the possibility of a major conventional war ever happening again in our lifetimes, so the discussion doesn't even have any bearing on how we will act in the future.  
> 
> All of that means that this discussion can only ever be academic.  
> 
> To go all apoplectic over a discussion that can only _ever_ be academic is, well, not our finest hour.

----------


## UWDude

> Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You call it a flame war when you are the one throwing the majority of the insults. That's funny.


$#@! you.  I have hardly insulted anyone, except their sensibilities with my opinions, and I can't help that because it is my opinion.  I have time and time again stated my positions, and asked rhetorical questions.  You jackasses are the ones being insulting, because you do not like my opinion on the matter, so $#@! you.

I must be brainwashed, I must be stupid, I don't know anything, I must want to bomb everybody, I am a war monger, I should be a neo-con, I am a psychopath, blah blah blah.  yadda yadda yadda, with very little effort to actually address my points.

Oh, by the way, $#@! you.

Did I mention $#@! you?  If not, $#@! you.

----------


## twomp

> $#@! you.  I have hardly insulted anyone.  I have time and time again stated my positions, and asked rhetorical questions.  You jackasses are the ones being insulting, because you do not like my opinion on the matter, so $#@! you.
> 
> Oh, by the way, $#@! you.


I have not insulted you. I have disagreed with you. You sir are the one doing all the insulting. See above for evidence.

----------


## UWDude

> I have not insulted you. I have disagreed with you. You sir are the one doing all the insulting. See above for evidence.


You started out insulting me, you $#@!ing ass.  First by not reading my posts before saying the same $#@! everybody else has about me being a $#@!ing neocon and wanting to bomb the middle east, and then calling me a warmonger when I am nothing of the sort.

And I don't even want to read your stupid bull$#@! about how because I am arguing the atomic bombings of Japan were justified, that makes me a war monger, since I have time and time again stated I have been against almost ALL American foreign policy.


But I am sure you are going to be a $#@!ing dick and say it anyway, because retards like you are predictable.

Was that an insult?  Did I call you a retard?  Yes, I did.  make the most of it, little dip$#@!.

----------


## twomp

> $#@! you.  I have hardly insulted anyone, except their sensibilities with my opinions, and I can't help that because it is my opinion.  I have time and time again stated my positions, and asked rhetorical questions.  You jackasses are the ones being insulting, because you do not like my opinion on the matter, so $#@! you.
> 
> I must be brainwashed, I must be stupid, I don't know anything, I must want to bomb everybody, I am a war monger, I should be a neo-con, I am a psychopath, blah blah blah.  yadda yadda yadda, with very little effort to actually address my points.
> 
> Oh, by the way, $#@! you.
> 
> Did I mention $#@! you?  If not, $#@! you.

----------


## twomp

> You started out insulting me, you $#@!ing ass.  First by not reading my posts before saying the same $#@! everybody else has about me being a $#@!ing neocon and wanting to bomb the middle east, and then calling me a warmonger when I am nothing of the sort.
> 
> And I don't even want to read your stupid bull$#@! about how because I am arguing the atomic bombings of Japan were justified, that makes me a war monger, since I have time and time again stated I have been against almost ALL American foreign policy.
> 
> 
> But I am sure you are going to be a $#@!ing dick and say it anyway, because retards like you are predictable.
> 
> Was that an insult?  Did I call you a retard?  Yes, I did.  make the most of it, little dip$#@!.


LOL! Your rage gives me a gigantic woody!

----------


## UWDude

> LOL! Your rage gives me a gigantic woody!


I know, it's what you stupid little trolls feed off of.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You started out insulting me, you $#@!ing ass.  First by not reading my posts before saying the same $#@! everybody else has about me being a $#@!ing neocon and wanting to bomb the middle east, and then calling me a warmonger when I am nothing of the sort.
> 
> And I don't even want to read your stupid bull$#@! about how because I am arguing the atomic bombings of Japan were justified, that makes me a war monger, since I have time and time again stated I have been against almost ALL American foreign policy.
> 
> 
> But I am sure you are going to be a $#@!ing dick and say it anyway, because retards like you are predictable.
> 
> Was that an insult?  Did I call you a retard?  Yes, I did.  make the most of it, little dip$#@!.



Nice tantrum, bro.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Soldiers are supposed to be killed in war. That is their purpose.
> 
> Civilians are not.
> Civilian casualties are to be avoided..
> Targeting Civilians is a WAR CRIME. This is understood worldwide. And has been for centuries.
> 
> Why *you* can not understand this is curious. but something is bent.


Some people are more interested in winning than complying with the U.N.'s rules. If an aggressor breaks the U.N.'s rules, but you stick to the rule-book, you invite the aggressor to win, and he will annihilate you and your rule-book from this world. If there is an afterlife, and if the U.N. writes the book there, you may win in the end, but not in this world.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Warfare is an illegitimate activity.  It should be abolished.


How exactly are we supposed to abolish something without resorting to warfare to enforce the abolition? I cannot picture how this works.

----------


## twomp

> Nice tantrum, bro.


LOL! Totally agree!

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Some people are more interested in winning than complying with the U.N.'s rules. If an aggressor breaks the U.N.'s rules, but you stick to the rule-book, you invite the aggressor to win, and he will annihilate you and your rule-book from this world. If there is an afterlife, and if the U.N. writes the book there, you may win in the end, but not in this world.


This is perhaps a good argument for why the U.N. has no business making up rules.

----------


## Contumacious

> Soldiers are supposed to be killed in war. That is their purpose.
> 
> Civilians are not.
> Civilian casualties are to be avoided..
> Targeting Civilians is a WAR CRIME. This is understood worldwide. And has been for centuries.
> 
> *Why you can not understand this is curious. but something is bent.*






*Hamburg Delenda Est*

"Let me explain to you the most fundamental principle of American foreign policy: *Any country where the people have unpronounceable names can be bombed by the US with impunity.* For you Rockwell readers who are a little slow on the uptake, "impunity" means they aren't allowed to bomb us back. "We called no tag-backs." It hardly qualifies as impunity when they blow up our biggest buildings, now does it? They aren't playing by the rules."

.

----------


## JCDenton0451

*UWDude*, please chill and answer this question:

Do you think that the US had a moral duty to intervene in the WW2 to save the Jews from genocide?

 Yes? No? Maybe?

----------


## UWDude

> *UWDude*, please chill and answer this question:
> 
> Do you think that the US had a moral duty to intervene in the WW2 to save the Jews from genocide?
> 
>  Yes? No? Maybe?


I'm not talking to you dickweed.  You gave me two neg reps in an hour.  

You're a troll, and not worth anything but my derision.

So $#@! off.  I have nothing else to say to you.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I'm not talking to you dickweed.  You gave me two neg reps in an hour.  
> 
> You're a troll, and not worth anything but my derision.
> 
> So $#@! off.  I have nothing else to say to you.


Ok then. I can only assume your answer is 'YES'.

I gave you negrep because you deserved it (you were posting asinine crap) and I'll do it again.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> God bless you FF... ...your posts are always way too long and too complex to reply to when I have to get to work, but I'll get back to you.


I try not to strawman my opponents, and to catch the necessary nuance




> Long story short, Stalin and Britain and the United states and France were not angels, but were better than the Nazis and Japan.


I'll give you that for the US, Britain, and France, although they're still quite bad.  I'm not sure I can say the same for Stalin.  Didn't he kill even more people than Hitler did?

Also, as bad as he was to the Jews, to my understanding the people who he wasn't particularly going after were nominally free in their own homes, whereas the soviet civilians were not.

I have a hard time bothering to compare at that point.  Both were exceedingly wicked men.

I maintain that I believe the US should have stayed out of the war.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I was expecting this one.  
> 
> "well, If I need to explain to you why it is worse to kill a child than a soldier, then there is no helping you".
> 
> It sounds nice and cliche, just like "innocent civilians" but still doesn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> There are circumstances where it is true.
> ...


uh...what?

i know its hot today in Seattle...find some air conditioning.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> How exactly are we supposed to abolish something without resorting to warfare to enforce the abolition? I cannot picture how this works.


 Well, it wouldn't.  Abolishing war is an unrealistic wish.  Who does the abolishing, right?

Now this is if the world is blanketed by states, as it is today.  If there were instead many competing and non-geographically-exclusive private defense firms, I could see full-out warfare being greatly reduced in scale and frequency, because in that case all the incentives would tend to encourage peace and discourage war.

----------


## AngryCanadian

As we  here disagree that there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified i want your all attention to this gaming thread it needs help on the votes. 


*If you could go back in time and be the president, would you have nuked Japan?*
Votes.
Ya:62%  39 U
Na: 33% 21 U 




> Yup





> Drop 68 more there.


Here are some posts justifying the nuking.



> *Japan shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor.*
> 
> Don't want to get nuked? DON'T SURPRISE BOMB A COUNTRY!



Blaming Japan for the Nanking massacre.





> why should we feel bad about nuking Japan, they're still in denial that anything like this ever took place, **** them





> If you nuked the people responsible and ONLY the people responsible for the Nanking massacre you might have a point.





> *dropping the bomb on japan was the right decision*.. far more people would of died with an land invasion


 



> It's unfortunate that many do not know about Nanking.



Its almost like stating that serbs deserved to have being bombed by NATO.

----------


## Christian Liberty

UWdude-

I'd like to respectfully ask some questions about your position.

First of all... I think everyone on RPF knows the public schools are full of crap.  So why do we believe them when they teach us Hitler tried to take over the world?  Honestly, I don't know as much about this as I should, but I know Hitler tried to exile Jews to America before he killed them.  If his goal was to take over the world, why would he do that?  Or: why would he even try to make peace with England?

Second of all...  even if you assume full and 100% guilt on the parts of the Japanese government, the civilians are still innocent, aren't they?  So even if you assume that the Allies were 100% justified in what they were fighting for, is it really OK to kill innocent civilians for the "crime" of being born in the wrong country?  

I don't know what your political philosophy is, however.  I'd say that even if nuking Japan was utilitarian, it was still wrong.

I will note that I ask with the upmost respect, and the humble admission that I held the same position you did a year ago.

Regarding both sides of this, I think that cursing out people who predominately agree with each other over historical issues like this are inappopriate.  Save the curses for people like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, or even people like Ted Cruz, who are still endorsing more wars NOW, not for people who agree with noninterventionist foreign policy with one exception from 70 years ago.

----------


## UWDude

> UWdude-
> 
> I'd like to respectfully ask some questions about your position.
> 
> First of all... I think everyone on RPF knows the public schools are full of crap.  So why do we believe them when they teach us Hitler tried to take over the world?  Honestly, I don't know as much about this as I should, but I know Hitler tried to exile Jews to America before he killed them.  If his goal was to take over the world, why would he do that?  Or: why would he even try to make peace with England?


I read about the first 150 pages of _Mein Kampf_.  (it is a bore!)  You don't need school texts to read primary documents. Hitler was quite explicit in his aims to take over the world, or at least his lebensraum.  And even if he didn't say he wanted to take over the world, his actions indicated he certainly did.  Stalin thought Hitler was Ok with just conquering western Europe, and that was a deadly mistake for Russia.




> Second of all...  even if you assume full and 100% guilt on the parts of the Japanese government, the civilians are still innocent, aren't they?  So even if you assume that the Allies were 100% justified in what they were fighting for, is it really OK to kill innocent civilians for the "crime" of being born in the wrong country?


I've answered this.  Most of the civilians were far from innocent.  Those who did detract were a tragedy that they were killed, but no more a tragedy than the soldiers who died trying to repel Japanese aggression, and not wortt more than the soldiers who would have to die repelling Japanese aggression.




> I don't know what your political philosophy is, however.  I'd say that even if nuking Japan was utilitarian, it was still wrong.


A lot of it is utilitarian.  You simply can not let nations take over the world.




> Regarding both sides of this, I think that cursing out people who predominately agree with each other over historical issues like this are inappopriate.  Save the curses for people like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, or even people like Ted Cruz, who are still endorsing more wars NOW, not for people who agree with noninterventionist foreign policy with one exception from 70 years ago.


I'm not cursing them out for their viewpoint, I am cursing then out for their trolling.

----------


## UWDude

> A soldier is engaged in an activity called warfare.  In this activity, one would normally assume many participants will die.  That is the purpose of the activity.  By fighting a war, he assumes certain risks.
> 
> The civilian is not fighting a war.  He is going about peaceful endeavors.  He should not be slaughtered, regardless of which regime he had the bad luck to be born under.
> 
> Of course, the total elimination of warfare would be the just situation.  Warfare is an illegitimate activity.  It should be abolished.  This would possibly result were we to eliminate states, but until then the fences and limits of just war rules mitigate the damage caused.  One of those rules is: don't slaughter civilians.


If a civilian sends their son to go to war, or grows food for the troops, or attends victory parades, or gift baskets to the troops, are they too, not engaged in warfare?  Is not a civilian who gives consent and support for his or her government to go to war, also assuming a certain risk, like the risk of being bombed or killed, or nuked?

Is teaching Nazi ideology to school children a peaceful endeavor?  what about growing crops for the troops?  What about turning in dissenters to the gestapo?  What about cheering on Nazi victories on the Eastern and western fronts?  Working in tank shell factories?  parachute factories?  Uniform factories?  Boot factories?

War is about who gets to make the rules, that is why it's only rules are utilitarian.  You don't execute prisoners not because of morality reasons, you don't execute prisoners because you do not want your prisoners execute din return.

If you aren't killing civilians wholesale, it is never because you are a peace loving people, it is because you are hoping those civilians will work for your empire once conquered, and that they will stop resisting sooner.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *You simply can not let nations take over the world.
> 
> *


This is the core reason you fail-and why your arguments are so terrible.  There is all the difference in the world between a nation and a State.  To blame a nation for the actions of the State and its apparatus is foolish and will always lead you to the incorrect answers.

Your new reading assignment- "The State", Oppenheimer, Franz.  "The State", Nock, Albert Jay.  "Anatomy Of The State", Rothbard, Murray. (these are probably available as audiobooks now)

----------


## UWDude

> Its almost like stating that serbs deserved to have being bombed by NATO.


..almost, except it is talking about WW II.  In fact, all of the equivalencies you guys keep trying to post on those who believe the atomic bombings were just seem to keep missing the point that WW II was a different war.

But obviously, this point is not goign to stop your dishonest debate tactics any time soon.

You'll just keep declaring all wars are the same, when clearly that simply is not the case.  (although, again, I will concede, in all wars, the profiteers always come out on top).

----------


## UWDude

Deleted


Not going to play with trolls anymore... ..even if they are being more civil.  

You lost the privilege.  Sorry.

----------


## UWDude

> This is the core reason you fail-and why your arguments are so terrible.  There is all the difference in the world between a nation and a State.  To blame a nation for the actions of the State and its apparatus is foolish and will always lead you to the incorrect answers.
> 
> Your new reading assignment- "The State", Oppenheimer, Franz.  "The State", Nock, Albert Jay.  "Anatomy Of The State", Rothbard, Murray. (these are probably available as audiobooks now)

----------


## UWDude

> Ok then. I can only assume your answer is 'YES'.
> 
> I gave you negrep because you deserved it (you were posting asinine crap) and I'll do it again.


Have fun post-urbating.  Assume whatever you want.  

It's not like you guys weren't writing out my arguments for me before, and then debating the points you made for me anyway.

So just go ahead and have the little debate with yourself.  And stick your finger up your assumes while you're at it too, it will make your little masturbatory debate feel better to yourself, I am sure.

----------


## RickyJ

> How exactly are we supposed to abolish something without resorting to warfare to enforce the abolition? I cannot picture how this works.


+1

Yes, the world is an evil place and wars will inevitably happen and there is nothing we can do about it except pray.  Thinking that you can abolish war without divine intervention is foolish, it will never happen.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Have fun post-urbating.  Assume whatever you want.  
> 
> It's not like you guys weren't writing out my arguments for me before, and then debating the points you made for me anyway.
> 
> So just go ahead and have the little debate with yourself.  And stick your finger up your assumes while you're at it too, it will make your little masturbatory debate feel better to yourself, I am sure.


You're ridiculously defensive and immature. Instead of writing this diatribe and calling me names could have just answered my question!

You seem to have bizarre foreign policy views for someone posting at RPF. If you're not comfortable with other people questioning them, you should keep them to yourself.

----------


## pcosmar

> Some people are more interested in winning than complying with the U.N.'s rules..


It has nothing to do with UN rules. I did not quote any UN rules.

Long before the UN ever existed and before the Geneva convention even,, Warfare was between armies.. Civilians and Cities ware not targeted.. They were often the prize for victors.

A commander that destroyed Cities and civilian populations was dishonored. Soldiers fight soldiers,, they don't slaughter civilians.

----------


## klamath

> It has nothing to do with UN rules. I did not quote any UN rules.
> 
> Long before the UN ever existed and before the Geneva convention even,, Warfare was between armies.. Civilians and Cities ware not targeted.. They were often the prize for victors.
> 
> A commander that *destroyed Cities and civilian populations was dishonored*. Soldiers fight soldiers,, they don't slaughter civilians.


BS

----------


## pcosmar

> BS


I'm not saying it didn't happen. It was dishonorable. And it was counter productive.

----------


## UWDude

> Long before the UN ever existed and before the Geneva convention even,, Warfare was between armies.. Civilians and Cities ware not targeted.. They were often the prize for victors.
> 
> A commander that destroyed Cities and civilian populations was dishonored. Soldiers fight soldiers,, they don't slaughter civilians.


Ha 

ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

(p.s.  look up the term "raze" )

----------


## UWDude

> I'm not saying it didn't happen. It was dishonorable. And it was counter productive.


You don't have a clue.

----------


## UWDude

> You're ridiculously defensive and immature. Instead of writing this diatribe and calling me names could have just answered my question!
> 
> You seem to have bizarre foreign policy views for someone posting at RPF. If you're not comfortable with other people questioning them, you should keep them to yourself.


Four neg reps in one day, and this douche bag thinks I should talk to him.

LoL


I'll talk to you, to tell you you are a total ass... ..and nothing else, ever.

And I know you are debbie downer aka Eduardo89 aka a bunch of other troll and sock puppet accounts.  so... $#@! off.

And regarding your statements about maturity, you are the one that has been banned multiple times from these forums for stupid things like giving multiple neg-reps in a row, and then crying to your mommy moderators when it happens to you.

----------


## JCDenton0451

*pcosmar*  has a point. If you look at Napoleonic wars in Europe, they were considerably more _civilized_, if the word "civilized" can be applied to war.

----------


## jllundqu

If we succumb to the notion that targeting civilians (read innocent men, women, and children who want nothing more than to exist in peace), no matter the "what if Dr. evil was going to blow up the world" scenario, then we as a nation, as a people, and maybe as a species are doomed.

There is always a better way.  There is always a solution that does not involve mass murder.  I implore those of you who argue that targeting (not collateral damage) civilians is 'sometimes' justified given scenario A or B to simply search your hearts... picture those men, women, and children in your mind... not some abstract concept of "civilian casualties" but rather a young rice farmer, his pregnant wife, and small children, working the fields.  If you can pull the trigger on those people in your mind, then we are lost.

----------


## UWDude

> If we succumb to the notion that targeting civilians (read innocent men, women, and children who want nothing more than to exist in peace), no matter the "what if Dr. evil was going to blow up the world" scenario, then we as a nation, as a people, and maybe as a species are doomed.
> 
> There is always a better way.  There is always a solution that does not involve mass murder.  I implore those of you who argue that targeting (not collateral damage) civilians is 'sometimes' justified given scenario A or B to simply search your hearts picture those men, women, and children in your mind... not some abstract concept of "civilian casualties" but rather a young rice farmer, his pregnant wife, and small children, working the fields.  If you can pull the trigger on those people in your mind, then we are lost.


And yet another person chimes in with out reading the thread first.

Thanks dude, but it's already been said.

Read the thread and figure out why I'll let somebody else clue you in this time, because I'm done with repeating myself to people who want to write but not read.

----------


## pcosmar

> You don't have a clue.


I have several clues.

*The Ethics of War and the Uses of War*
http://www.aloha.net/~stroble/Noncombatant.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

----------


## UWDude

> I have several clues.
> 
> *The Ethics of War and the Uses of War*
> http://www.aloha.net/~stroble/Noncombatant.html
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war


No, obviously you do not, and posting a wiki about the rules of war and an article on the "theories of noncombatant immunity" shows just how shallow and idealistic your notions of warfare are.

Theories on laws of war..... 

Theories on laws of war..... 


*sigh*

----------


## Contumacious

> I have several clues.The Ethics of War and the Uses of War


*Collateral Damage*

Collateral damage.......it sounds so much nicer than "wanton destruction and murder."

As history  and very recent history at that  demonstrates, however, once you grant government the power to inflict harm on one group of people, it soon uses that power against other groups, often including those who supported the power grab in the first place.

.

----------


## klamath

> I'm not saying it didn't happen. It was dishonorable. And it was counter productive.


It happened at just a great a rate then as now. Only difference now is destructive power of modern weapons. Had they had them then they would have used them. It is dishonorable now but it happens just like in the past.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, obviously you do not, and posting a wiki about the rules of war and an article on the "theories of noncombatant immunity" shows just how shallow and idealistic your notions of warfare are.
> 
> Theories on laws of war..... 
> 
> Theories on laws of war..... 
> 
> 
> *sigh*


 I have also been in am environment where men died regularly and fighting for my life was routine.

I have been in street confrontations, armed. I have seen my share of violence and am capable of dealing it.

I dislike violence even when it is necessary.

You are simply an ass.

----------


## pcosmar

> It is dishonorable now but it happens just like in the past.


And that was exactly my point. It is dishonorable.

It is wrong.

----------


## UWDude

> It happened at just a great a rate then as now. Only difference now is destructive power of modern weapons. Had they had them then they would have used them. It is dishonorable now but it happens just like in the past.


Cities and entire populations have been burned to the ground hundreds of times before.  Before nukes, armies could still easily wipe out entire populations of people and civilians without batting an eyelash.  Ghengis Khan was a master of this, and it made him a reputation so fearsome cities tended to surrender, because they knew if they fought, he would kill everyone.

----------


## UWDude

> I have also been in am environment where men died regularly and fighting for my life was routine.
> 
> I have been in street confrontations, armed. I have seen my share of violence and am capable of dealing it.
> 
> I dislike violence even when it is necessary.
> 
> You are simply an ass.


What does that have to do with you being wrong about how warfare has been conducted throughout human history?  Disliking violence is not going to change the reality of it.

----------


## klamath

> And that was exactly my point. It is dishonorable.
> 
> It is wrong.


And it is why I come down so GDed hard on any talk of wanting a revolution. American revolutionaries were considered dishonorable for hiding behind stone walls and shooting at honorable british formations.
War *is* dishonorable. there maybe honorable men under arms but as a whole it is dishonorable.

----------


## pcosmar

I am done arguing with such.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> If we succumb to the notion that targeting civilians (read innocent men, women, and children who want nothing more than to exist in peace), no matter the "what if Dr. evil was going to blow up the world" scenario, then we as a nation, as a people, and maybe as a species are doomed.
> 
> There is always a better way.  There is always a solution that does not involve mass murder.  I implore those of you who argue that targeting (*not collateral damage*) civilians is 'sometimes' justified given scenario A or B to simply search your hearts... picture those men, women, and children in your mind... not some abstract concept of "civilian casualties" but rather a young rice farmer, his pregnant wife, and small children, working the fields.  If you can pull the trigger on those people in your mind, then we are lost.


What is your position with respect to "collateral damage"?

----------


## UWDude

> What is your position with respect to "collateral damage"?


Yes, amazingly, "collateral damage" is more acceptable to people than "civilian targeting"  

Because they are focusing on the morality of the tactics, not the morality of the war.

If a people do not support and cause an immoral war, they would never have to worry about the degrees of immorality of tactics they are using.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> ... Long before the UN ever existed and before the Geneva convention even,, Warfare was between armies.. Civilians and Cities ware not targeted.. They were often the prize for victors.
> 
> A commander that destroyed Cities and civilian populations was dishonored. Soldiers fight soldiers,, they don't slaughter civilians.


This is convenient for an aggressor who does not care whether you honor him, whether you consider him a real "soldier", or whether you consider him a real "army". All he cares about is winning, and all he has to do to tie your hands is position his command and control centers amidst "innocents".

----------


## FindLiberty

_...times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified?_ "They may need some extreme softening up as a last resort via DU shells, conventional carpet bombs or the OP title's less damaging WMD deployment when the SOP "political" dirty tricks and assassinations don't get the job done...  *If "they" (EU?) refuse to buy GMO food products, seeds and Roundup. Or if "they" resist or refuse to sell/give us their oil/minerals/etc.  Or, if "they" won't allow the cia/NWO to rule "them".   

The specific justification(s) must seem "moral" via the attacker's MSM even if it's all based on falsehoods.*

----------


## DamianTV

Why is there so much contention about the effects once war is started and very little about the false reasons why war started to begin with?

----------


## Anti-Neocon

The answer is obviously yes.  If dropping the WMD prevents the whole world from exploding, then thousands of dead people are better than billions.  This situation is purely hypothetical though, and I can't think of an actual example which would call for such action.  But it's definitely possible.

----------


## DamianTV

> The answer is obviously yes.  If dropping the WMD prevents the whole world from exploding, then thousands of dead people are better than billions.  This situation is purely hypothetical though, and I can't think of an actual example which would call for such action.  But it's definitely possible.


Then lets kick it off by nuking the real terrorists and preventing the deaths of millions or billions by starvation or Police State.

/slight sarcasm

There is a solution: Hold Authority Accountable for their Crimes against Humanity.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> There is a solution: Hold Authority Accountable for their Crimes against Humanity.


Well yes.

I didn't mean to come off like a hawk on anything.  I'm pretty much on the peace-loving hippie end of the hawkishness spectrum.  I don't condone nuking anything or anyone at the moment, probably not in my lifetime, but there is a potential emergency situation where mass destruction prevents even bigger mass destruction.  That's all my point is.  To say that such a hypothetical situation is impossible is a losing argument.

----------


## FindLiberty

The talk of M.A.D.ness scares me.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> 1.  No, the Japanese were not trying to surrender, their idea of surrender was kind of a "lets stop and keep what we have" not, "OK, we shouldn't have tried to conquer the world with Hitler, we understand our aggression caused the deaths of tens of millions of people all over the world in a few years, women, children, and soldiers.  We do not deserve any of the empire we have taken with wholesale murder."
> 
> 2.  As I said above, Roosevelt was RIGHT to stop shipping scrap iron and oil to the Japanese.  The Japanese were slaughtering people wholesale in China.  Embargoes and wars are not always wrong, they are usually just implemented unjustly.
> 
> 3.  Why hope?  Why care?  History WILL run its course.  The United States WILL NEVER be safe unless it changes its ways.  That will not happen, so eventually, WW III will.  That means American cities will be wiped off the face of the Earth, as will other cities worldwide.



What do we have to do to change our ways? No one is going to nuke this country and not get wiped off the map for doing it. 


And no it's not ok to kill innocent lives.

----------


## Dr.3D

> What do we have to do to change our ways? No one is going to nuke this country and not get wiped off the map for doing it. 
> 
> 
> And no it's not ok to kill innocent lives.


How about all those innocent people who live in the country that nuked this one?   You just said it would get wiped off of the map.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> How about all those innocent people who live in the country that nuked this one?   You just said it would get wiped off of the map.


Great minds think alike

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I read about the first 150 pages of _Mein Kampf_. (it is a bore!) You don't need school texts to read primary documents. Hitler was quite explicit in his aims to take over the world, or at least his lebensraum. And even if he didn't say he wanted to take over the world, his actions indicated he certainly did. Stalin thought Hitler was Ok with just conquering western Europe, and that was a deadly mistake for Russia.


OK, I can understand that, and I've never read that particular book.  That said, there are a few assumptions inherent in the pro-war (At least in this particular case, I'm obviously not saying that to be pro-war here is to be pro-every war) position:

First of all, it assumes that Hitler trying to send Jews to the US (Which FDR refused to take) was a purely pointless act.  If Hitler was just going to come over here anyway, why would he have even tried to give us his Jews?  I know this isn't a dealbreaker, but it does show that the common viewpoint is not foolproof.

Second of all, it assumes Hitler would have actually had enough time to conquer the entire world, or that the next leader would have the absolute same ideology that Hitler had.

Third of all, it assumes that we would be safer by taking the fight to them rather than keeping our navy strong and being ready to defend ourselves on our own soil.  I believe, by contrast, that people actually fight harder on their own soil.

Fourth: Didn't Hitler try to make peace with Great Britain at one point?  If he just wanted to conquer the whole world... why?

At the end of the day, as bad as Hitler was, I don't really see Stalin as being any better, and I certainly see how the wisdom of our Founders come into play too.  Although worse than some others, Adolf Hitler was a foreign monster that we sent troops overseas to destroy, in rejection of the advice of the Founders of this country.






> I've answered this. Most of the civilians were far from innocent. Those who did detract were a tragedy that they were killed, but no more a tragedy than the soldiers who died trying to repel Japanese aggression, and not wortt more than the soldiers who would have to die repelling Japanese aggression.


Sorry, I missed the answer amidst the bitterness on all sides of this thread.  My apologies.

Regarding the innocence of the citizens, I'll address some of your specific questions regarding innocence below, where I quoted you.  However, for now I will simply say this, it doesn't matter.  Killing of ONE innocent person is a murderous action, and warranting of execution of the person who does the same, regardless of how many lives it saves.





> A lot of it is utilitarian. You simply can not let nations take over the world.


I know, based on your own statements, that you don't take it this far, but some of this same logic was used for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, on the grounds that radical Muslims might take over the world someday.  Or Korea or Vietnam, because of the communists supposedly trying to take over the world someday.  At the end of the day, going to war because of what someone might do later is just asking for tyranny at home.  And as we saw, FDR ruled like a tyrant throughout that war, even more so than he did before the war.




> I'm not cursing them out for their viewpoint, I am cursing then out for their trolling.


I don't think most of the people who disagree with you are trolling.  And to be clear, I don't believe you are trolling either.  Intense disagreement isn't necessarily trolling.



> If a civilian sends their son to go to war,
> or grows food for the troops, or attends victory parades, or gift baskets to the troops, are they too, not engaged in warfare? Is not a civilian who gives consent and support for his or her government to go to war, also assuming a certain risk, like the risk of being bombed or killed, or nuked?
> 
> Is teaching Nazi ideology to school children a peaceful endeavor? what about growing crops for the troops? What about turning in dissenters to the gestapo? What about cheering on Nazi victories on the Eastern and western fronts? Working in tank shell factories? parachute factories? Uniform factories? Boot factories?
> 
> War is about who gets to make the rules, that is why it's only rules are utilitarian. You don't execute prisoners not because of morality reasons, you don't execute prisoners because you do not want your prisoners execute din return.
> 
> If you aren't killing civilians wholesale, it is never because you are a peace loving people, it is because you are hoping those civilians will work for your empire once conquered, and that they will stop resisting sooner.


I thought about addressing these point by point, but I realized that pretty much everything you said here (Replacing "Neoconservative" with Nazi when appropriate) could apply to the modern US.  Are you comfortable saying 90% of this country deserves to die?  SInce that's the logical conclusion of your line of thinking.  Seeing as I think you realize America has been the aggressor in every war which it has participated SINCE World War II, yet Americans still worship/support the troops, teach that the wars are "Justified", exc.

At the end of the day, what you think about a historical event is less important than what you think about the present.  Ultimately, I think the logical conclusions of your argument to the present day, while not quite libertarian, remain interesting.




> ..almost, except it is talking about WW II. In fact, all of the equivalencies you guys keep trying to post on those who believe the atomic bombings were just seem to keep missing the point that WW II was a different war.
> 
> But obviously, this point is not goign to stop your dishonest debate tactics any time soon.
> 
> You'll just keep declaring all wars are the same, when clearly that simply is not the case. (although, again, I will concede, in all wars, the profiteers always come out on top).


All wars are certainly not the same.  The US Revolution was secession and an act of self defense.  The War of 1812 was defensive action since Britain attacked our Navy.  The War of Northern Aggression was self-defense on the South's part, they tried to secede and the Union aggressively maintained a fort in Southern territory (And a stance that they would invade and commit murder to force the South back into the Union.)

You can argue World War II was "Different" because Japan attacked us, but at the end of the day, any argument you use for attacking Japanese citizens over there can just as easily be used to justify the 9/11 attacks.  If you don't see this, I can explain further.






> Four neg reps in one day, and this douche bag thinks I should talk to him.
> 
> LoL
> 
> 
> I'll talk to you, to tell you you are a total ass... ..and nothing else, ever.
> 
> And I know you are debbie downer aka Eduardo89 aka a bunch of other troll and sock puppet accounts. so... $#@! off.
> 
> And regarding your statements about maturity, you are the one that has been banned multiple times from these forums for stupid things like giving multiple neg-reps in a row, and then crying to your mommy moderators when it happens to you.


I don't think Debbie is Eduardo.  




> Yes, amazingly, "collateral damage" is more acceptable to people than "civilian targeting" 
> 
> Because they are focusing on the morality of the tactics, not the morality of the war.
> 
> If a people do not support and cause an immoral war, they would never have to worry about the degrees of immorality of tactics they are using.


Do you believe the US has any right to maintain bases in Middle Eastern countries? 

Do you believe, therefore, that a war waged to force us to withdraw from Saudi Arabia is justified?

Do you believe, therefore, that the 9/11 attacks were justified?

The 9/11 attacks were not justified, not because the people committing them were outside of the government, but because the people attacked were innocent.  Even if they supported the wars, they still didn't deserve to die.

----------


## robert68

> Well yes.
> 
> I didn't mean to come off like a hawk on anything.  I'm pretty much on the peace-loving hippie end of the hawkishness spectrum.  I don't condone nuking anything or anyone at the moment, probably not in my lifetime, but there is a potential emergency situation where mass destruction prevents even bigger mass destruction.  That's all my point is.  To say that such a hypothetical situation is impossible is a losing argument.


Asserting an outcome is possible doesn’t make an outcome possible. Literally any act of force or relinquishing of liberty can be justified on the greater good "possibility”, and statists of every stripe use a version of it to justify the “necessary” means of achieving the “greater good”.  

Also there's the unintended consequences (at least to most) of actions. Look and how much of the world was under communist domination when the US formally entered the war at the end of 1941, and how much of it was under communist domination 10 years later. The myopic and coldblooded defenders of the a-bombs on decimated tiny Japan could care less about that.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Asserting something is possible doesn’t mean it’s possible. Literally any act of force or relinquishing of liberty can be justified on the greater good "possibility”, and statists of every stripe use a version of it to justify the “necessary” means of achieving the “greater good”.


This is why I don't like to dogmatically say that "liberty" is the solution to every problem.  I'm a pragmatist who likes to look at individual situations and the arguments of both sides, and then decide if it is worth giving up liberty.  Most of the time, it is not, and thus I find myself agreeing with libertarians more often than not.




> Also there's the unintended consequences (at least to most) of actions. Look and how much of the world was under communist domination when the US formally entered the war at the end of 1941, and how much of it was under communist domination 10 years later. The myopic and coldblooded defenders of the a-bombs on decimated tiny Japan could care less about that.


I never defended the a-bombing of Japan and never will.  Like I said, there is no historical example where dropping this bomb would be justified, but it does happen to be extremely easy to come up with hypothetical examples.  I also see the justification of what would be considered torture techniques in certain emergency situations.  If the world was about to blow up in 10 minutes and we had someone who knew the secret code to stop it from blowing up, I sure as hell would have that guy in a stranglehold trying to get that code.  Does that make me a repugnant statist?  You be the judge.

----------


## Bryan

As someone who just left the hypocenter of  Hiroshima an hour ago, I can tell you I would never want that blood on my hands.

----------


## compromise

If the US suffers a WMD attack, everything should absolutely be on the table in response to that. Keeping everything on the table in response to that acts as a valuable deterrent.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> If the US suffers a WMD attack, everything should absolutely be on the table in response to that. Keeping everything on the table in response to that acts as a valuable deterrent.


Actually, this would be a double-edged sword.  It can and has had the opposite effect of what was intended.  We make threats to take action and create a large stock of bombs, missiles, and tanks, so in response they make counter-threats to take action and create a large stock of bombs, missiles, and tanks; and in response we make even more bombs, missiles, and tanks, etc.

Let's look at an example on a smaller scale.  What if someone who lives in your neighborhood threatens to burn down every home in your neighborhood, including yours, if someone breaks into their home?  Is that reasonable or acceptable?

I think it's never acceptable to put things on the table that involve "collateral" damage, collective punishment, etc.  This gives socialists and neocons an excuse to be able to get away with implementing their anti-individualist & genocidal agendas (this notion probably originates from them for that purpose).  I don't want these maniacs to be permitted to have their way.

Why does war or fighting even exist to begin with?  It's one thing if we're living in the hunter-gatherer era, where the essentials for living and survival are scarce.  It was a matter of fighting or starving to death if one tribe is blocking another tribe from having access to resources.  Fight or flight - this is what animals do.  What separates us from beasts is that we have the capability of coming up with alternatives to fighting, such as trading.

War is wasteful and destructive.  Capitalism is constructive and far more efficient.  So, it seems to me that waging capitalism is in essence the antithesis of waging war.  Capitalism is a far better way of dealing with scarcity than war.  BTW, to clarify, countries that we call communist or socialist are still capitalists since they still use money and trade; the difference is they're state capitalism rather than free-market capitalism, and based on the evidence provided to us by history, free-market capitalism is more effective than state capitalism.

It's still justifiable for us to defend ourselves, though.  I myself am no pacifist.  If someone invades our country then we get to do what we need to do to neutralize them.  Same if someone breaks into your home to do who knows what; you get to do what you have to in order to neutralize them.  That doesn't mean you get to punish your neighbors for the actions of a burglar.  They have no obligation to protect your home unless you contracted with them to do so - even then they're probably not going to say that you can burn their home down if they fail.

----------


## Contumacious

> If the US suffers a WMD attack, everything should absolutely be on the table in response to that. Keeping everything on the table in response to that acts as a valuable deterrent.


The problem is that we are being governed by continuing criminal enterprise.

 The scumbags are always up to no good , from FDR secret war against Japan in Indochina to the USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 a civilian aircraft.

.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If the US suffers a WMD attack, everything should absolutely be on the table in response to that. Keeping everything on the table in response to that acts as a valuable deterrent.





> Actually, this would be a double-edged sword.  It can and has had the opposite effect of what was intended.  We make threats to take action and create a large stock of bombs, missiles, and tanks, so in response they make counter-threats to take action and create a large stock of bombs, missiles, and tanks; and in response we make even more bombs, missiles, and tanks, etc.
> 
> Let's look at an example on a smaller scale.  What if someone who lives in your neighborhood threatens to burn down every home in your neighborhood, including yours, if someone breaks into their home?  Is that reasonable or acceptable?
> 
> I think it's never acceptable to put things on the table that involve "collateral" damage, collective punishment, etc.  This gives socialists and neocons an excuse to be able to get away with implementing their anti-individualist & genocidal agendas (this notion probably originates from them for that purpose).  I don't want these maniacs to be permitted to have their way.
> 
> Why does war or fighting even exist to begin with?  It's one thing if we're living in the hunter-gatherer era, where the essentials for living and survival are scarce.  It was a matter of fighting or starving to death if one tribe is blocking another tribe from having access to resources.  Fight or flight - this is what animals do.  What separates us from beasts is that we have the capability of coming up with alternatives to fighting, such as trading.
> 
> War is wasteful and destructive.  Capitalism is constructive and far more efficient.  So, it seems to me that waging capitalism is in essence the antithesis of waging war.  Capitalism is a far better way of dealing with scarcity than war.  BTW, to clarify, countries that we call communist or socialist are still capitalists since they still use money and trade; the difference is they're state capitalism rather than free-market capitalism, and based on the evidence provided to us by history, free-market capitalism is more effective than state capitalism.
> ...


At the end of the day, I agree with Neil, but at the same point, we don't have to broadcast that to the entire world.

----------


## willwash

There are no "civilians" in a total war like wwii.  Every person is (theoretically) mobilized to aid the war effort, whether through active military service, munitions production, agricultural production, war propaganda production/dissemination or anything else.  Hospitals are treating wounded soldiers so they can be sent back to the front lines to fight us, and healing sick civilians so they can get back to their factories, farms, etc to produce the tools of war which will be used to attack us.  schools are brainwashing children into becoming our future enemy soldiers, movies are all either of the morale boosting troop worship kind or the galvanizing demonization of the enemy kind, but the purpose is the same: to aid the war effort against us.

I'm not saying this justifies nuclear attack against civilians(i didnt vote on the poll) but it is a little more complicated than "it is never ok to attack innocent civilians".  I'm pretty surprised by the overwhelming poll response against such an attack.

----------


## Contumacious

> I'm not saying this justifies nuclear attack against civilians(i didnt vote on the poll) but it is a little more complicated than "it is never ok to attack innocent civilians".  I'm pretty surprised by the overwhelming poll response against such an attack.


Wut?

Ohhhhhhh, I see


*The NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD* in Portsmouth, Virginia, is one of the largest shipyards in the world specializing in repairing, overhauling and modernizing ships and submarines. It's the oldest and largest industrial facility that belongs to the U.S. Navy, and it's also the most multifaceted.  This web site was designed to introduce you to the vast industrial capabilities available at NNSY, and to invite you to take a closer look at what Norfolk Naval Shipyard has to offer.

.

----------


## willwash

> Wut?
> 
> Ohhhhhhh, I see
> 
> 
> *The NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD* in Portsmouth, Virginia, is one of the largest shipyards in the world specializing in repairing, overhauling and modernizing ships and submarines. It's the oldest and largest industrial facility that belongs to the U.S. Navy, and it's also the most multifaceted.  This web site was designed to introduce you to the vast industrial capabilities available at NNSY, and to invite you to take a closer look at what Norfolk Naval Shipyard has to offer.
> 
> .


I def don't think the concept of total war is applicable to the US today (all anyone effing cares about is football), and while true 100 percent total war is a theoretical construct only, 1945 Japan comes pretty close.  I don't think you could find many civilians who were not somehow engaged in the war effort.

----------


## Contumacious

> I def don't think the concept of total war is applicable to the US today (all anyone effing cares about is football), and while true 100 percent total war is a theoretical construct only, 1945 Japan comes pretty close. * I don't think you could find many civilians who were not somehow engaged in the war effort.*


*No person shall* be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor * be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;* nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

.

----------


## willwash

> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger*; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
> 
> .


  ..

----------


## willwash

But you have a point.  It's a complicated question I'm still figuring out...that's why I haven't voted in the poll

----------


## Contumacious

> ..


Are you saying that Japanese women , children and innocent bystanders were "in actual service"?!?!?!?!?

.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't  think I would nuke somebody even for nuking my country first.  But I would absolutely take a stance that made the rest of the world BELIEVE that if they ever nuked me, they would be nuked in retaliation.

----------


## willwash

> Are you saying that Japanese women , children and innocent bystanders were "in actual service"?!?!?!?!?
> 
> .


I'm saying Japan was in a state of total war, which lessons the distinction between military targets and civilians/innocent bystanders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_....C5.8Dwa_Japan

Whether this justifies a nuclear attack is up for debate.  A conventional-only conquest of Japan would definitely have killed many more Americans, and probably caused more Japanese death and destruction too by the time they would have surrendered absent a nuclear threat.  This being said, there are additional considerations when talking about nukes.  It does somehow seem mor distant, cold and cowardly than massive saturation firebombing.

In any case, focusing attacks (nuclear or conventional) only on military targets would have done much less to thwart the Japanese war effort, and the war would probably have gone on indefinitely.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> How about all those innocent people who live in the country that nuked this one?   You just said it would get wiped off of the map.


I'm not saying it's ok. It'd be a shame their government would be responsible for them. I'm not saying it's necessarily right, but any country that dare nuke this country is not going to be on the map in this day and age.

----------


## Brett85

I would say "yes," because if there's a situation where another country drops a nuclear bomb on one of our cities, then it would be justified for our country to use a nuclear weapon on the country that used the nuke on us.  That's the principle of mutually assured destruction, and that principle has served as a valuable deterrent against nuclear bombs being used against us.  Another country knows that if they ever use a nuclear weapon against us, we will respond in kind and basically make their country go extinct.  Hiroshima was more controversial since we used a nuke against a country that didn't nuke one of our cities.  Japan attacked us, and we certainly had the right to use military force after we were attacked.  But, I guess history will be the judge of whether that was a necessary course of action or not.  Some say that the Hiroshima bombing ended WWII and ended up saving lives as a result.  Others say that it was just an unnecessary attack that killed thousands or millions of innocent civilians.  To me that question is trickier than whether or not we should use nuclear weapons if our country suffers a nuclear attack.  I think the answer to that question is obvious; we have the right to defend the citizens of our country after a nuclear attack on our soil.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I would say "yes," because if there's a situation where another country drops a nuclear bomb on one of our cities, then it would be justified for our country to use a nuclear weapon on the country that used the nuke on us.  That's the principle of mutually assured destruction, and that principle has served as a valuable deterrent against nuclear bombs being used against us.  Another country knows that if they ever use a nuclear weapon against us, we will respond in kind and basically make their country go extinct.  Hiroshima was more controversial since we used a nuke against a country that didn't nuke one of our cities.  Japan attacked us, and we certainly had the right to use military force after we were attacked.  But, I guess history will be the judge of whether that was a necessary course of action or not.  Some say that the Hiroshima bombing ended WWII and ended up saving lives as a result.  Others say that it was just an unnecessary attack that killed thousands or millions of innocent civilians.  To me that question is trickier than whether or not we should use nuclear weapons if our country suffers a nuclear attack.  I think the answer to that question is obvious; we have the right to defend the citizens of our country after a nuclear attack on our soil.


Its been 70 years, how much longer does history need?

While I would certainly like every other country to believe they are going to get it if they nuked us, is killing civilians really "Defense"?  None of those people nuked us.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> Actually, this would be a double-edged sword.  It can and has had the opposite effect of what was intended.  We make threats to take action and create a large stock of bombs, missiles, and tanks, so in response they make counter-threats to take action and create a large stock of bombs, missiles, and tanks; and in response we make even more bombs, missiles, and tanks, etc.
> 
> Let's look at an example on a smaller scale.  What if someone who lives in your neighborhood threatens to burn down every home in your neighborhood, including yours, if someone breaks into their home?  Is that reasonable or acceptable?
> 
> I think it's never acceptable to put things on the table that involve "collateral" damage, collective punishment, etc.  This gives socialists and neocons an excuse to be able to get away with implementing their anti-individualist & genocidal agendas (this notion probably originates from them for that purpose).  I don't want these maniacs to be permitted to have their way.
> 
> Why does war or fighting even exist to begin with?  It's one thing if we're living in the hunter-gatherer era, where the essentials for living and survival are scarce.  It was a matter of fighting or starving to death if one tribe is blocking another tribe from having access to resources.  Fight or flight - this is what animals do.  What separates us from beasts is that we have the capability of coming up with alternatives to fighting, such as trading.
> 
> War is wasteful and destructive.  Capitalism is constructive and far more efficient.  So, it seems to me that waging capitalism is in essence the antithesis of waging war.  Capitalism is a far better way of dealing with scarcity than war.  BTW, to clarify, countries that we call communist or socialist are still capitalists since they still use money and trade; the difference is they're state capitalism rather than free-market capitalism, and based on the evidence provided to us by history, free-market capitalism is more effective than state capitalism.
> ...


So if another country nukes a city in America, using a nuke in retaliation is not okay?

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> Its been 70 years, how much longer does history need?
> 
> While I would certainly like every other country to believe they are going to get it if they nuked us, is killing civilians really "Defense"?  None of those people nuked us.


So then what is the appropriate response?

----------


## willwash

Part of the problem with Japan was US insistence on unconditional surrender.

Would it really have killed us to bring the Japanese to the negotiating table in late 1944 or so?  It was obvious who the winner of the war was at that point, and what kept it going was our need to see Japan totally broken, probably out of anger over Pearl Harbor.

----------


## Cabal

> So if another country nukes a city in America, using a nuke in retaliation is not okay?


Ignoring the issue of nuclear apocalypse scenarios...

If a man murders your entire family, is it okay to then murder his entire family?

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> Ignoring the issue of nuclear apocalypse scenarios...
> 
> If a man murders your entire family, is it okay to then murder his entire family?


This post isn't about a man murdering your entire family. A nuclear bomb sent to destroy a city and kill millions is entirely different and you can't compare that situation to another. Not only does a nuclear bomb have immediate casualties and damage, the effects are long term because of the intense amounts of radiation. 

If a rouge terrorist dropped a nuclear bomb over a city, that would be different from a government of another country doing it. That's a much better comparison than someone murdering your family. If another government of another country nuked an American city, it would be inappropriate to use anything other than a nuclear attack in retaliation.

----------


## pcosmar

> I think the answer to that question is obvious; we have the right to defend the citizens of our country after a nuclear attack on our soil.


We have entirely different views of Defense.

What you are describing is retaliation not defense..

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

I guess I should change my answer. If another countries government drops a nuclear bomb on an American city, it is appropriate to use a nuclear bomb in response to that attack.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ignoring the issue of nuclear apocalypse scenarios...
> 
> If a man murders your entire family, is it okay to then murder his entire family?


That's the logical conclusion...

----------


## willwash

> We have entirely different views of Defense.
> 
> What you are describing is retaliation not defense..


The threat of retaliation IS a defense.

----------


## Cabal

> This post isn't about a man murdering your entire family. A nuclear bomb sent to destroy a city and kill millions is entirely different and you can't compare that situation to another. Not only does a nuclear bomb have immediate casualties and damage, the effects are long term because of the intense amounts of radiation. 
> 
> If a rouge terrorist dropped a nuclear bomb over a city, that would be different from a government of another country doing it. That's a much better comparison than someone murdering your family. If another government of another country nuked an American city, it would be inappropriate to use anything other than a nuclear attack in retaliation.


You're missing the point, I think.

The question was asked to make you think about the distinction between justice and vengeance, and where responsibility truly lies. Surely those responsible for launching such an attack (the man, not his family who had no real role in the murder of your family) should thus be held responsible. But to suggest that launching an attack that is virtually identical in practice (murdering his family), in reality, makes you no less a murderer than the man who murdered your family.

I would suspect that you would not murder a man's family, nor would you want a man's family murdered, if said man murdered your family. Yet, you seem to have no issue murdering a civilian population of a nation whose leader murdered the civilian population of your nation? The analogies don't have to be perfect to demonstrate the inconsistencies.

"it would be inappropriate to use anything other than a nuclear attack"

Read that back to yourself a few more times.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> We have entirely different views of Defense.
> 
> What you are describing is retaliation not defense..


Defense can be making them adequately fear a retaliation, but obviously you don't actually have to in order to set up the fear.  Also, sometimes a retaliatory attack is defensive if you're trying to hinder them from attacking further, for example.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So then what is the appropriate response?


One which does not kill innocent people is the only moral response.

----------


## Contumacious

> I'm saying Japan was in a state of total war, which lessons the distinction between military targets and civilians/innocent bystanders
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_....C5.8Dwa_Japan
> 
> Whether this justifies a nuclear attack is up for debate.


The United States is SUPPOSED to be a NEUTRAL Constitutional Republic.

But the motherfuckers have turned it into a bellicose welfare /warfare state.

I am "required" by law to support the bastards even though I have voted for  Libertarian Party candidates.

Should AQ treat me as if I was supporting the regime and make me and my family a target?

.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> One which does not kill innocent people is the only moral response.


Sometimes that is impossible.  One which leads to the least amount of deaths of innocent people would be the appropriate response in that case.

Of course, one would have to use estimation, and if people have sinister motives, they could intentionally mis-estimate in order to carry out their agenda.  This makes it tough to make such a policy foolproof and in everyone's best interest, but ideally that's how it would be.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> So if another country nukes a city in America, using a nuke in retaliation is not okay?


It depends.  Can you be more specific?  How would a nuke be used in retaliation?  Is it only to nuke the air base where the runways and aircraft that were used to deploy the nuke, or the naval base?  Would America warn people in the targeted area that it's about to be bombed, what's going to be targeted, when it's going to happen, and why?  Even before the US nuked Japan, the US dropped a bunch of leaflets to alert people to expect fire bombings.  Are we sure it was them?  Is there another way of neutralizing the culprits, besides dropping a nuke on them?  There's always right ways and wrong ways to deal with problems.

When a building is taken down for a construction project with a controlled demolition, there has to be a point where the team pushing down on that plunger or trigger won't be liable if someone gets killed.  They cordon off the area, post warning signs, and check every crack and crevice to make sure no one's in the building - even though there were warnings not to trespass and that the building was going to be imploded.  If someone ignores the barriers, signs, and sneaks into the building, it's their fault if they get killed.

If there are hospitals, schools, nursing homes, etc. in the targeted area, perhaps you ought to give them fair warning with a reasonable amount of time to get those patients, children, elderly people, etc. away from the targeted area.  If you demonstrate that you made a fair and reasonable effort to see to it that you don't harm or kill someone who doesn't deserve it, then you may have an argument for why it was ok to retaliate the way you did.  Perhaps then it no longer needs to be considered a place with civilian populated buildings, just like the controlled demolition team can claim the building was vacant before they brought it down.  If someone chose not to leave and got harmed or killed in either of these cases, either way it was their fault, not the people pulling the triggers.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> You're missing the point, I think.
> 
> The question was asked to make you think about the distinction between justice and vengeance, and where responsibility truly lies. Surely those responsible for launching such an attack (the man, not his family who had no real role in the murder of your family) should thus be held responsible. But to suggest that launching an attack that is virtually identical in practice (murdering his family), in reality, makes you no less a murderer than the man who murdered your family.
> 
> I would suspect that you would not murder a man's family, nor would you want a man's family murdered, if said man murdered your family. Yet, you seem to have no issue murdering a civilian population of a nation whose leader murdered the civilian population of your nation? The analogies don't have to be perfect to demonstrate the inconsistencies.
> 
> "it would be inappropriate to use anything other than a nuclear attack"
> 
> Read that back to yourself a few more times.


I'm not missing the point. Murder by an individual is entirely different than a nuclear attack brought on by a government. That's a legitimate act of war. And innocent civilians die in war. It'd be sad if another government was the cause of the murder of so many innocent civilians, but to say we don't have a right to defend ourselves is preposterous. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is unjustified. But can you imagine if another country nuked us and we just sat back and did nothing? Or would you rather we just go in and invade them? I'll say it again, anything less than a nuclear attack in reptilian for a nuclear attack sends the message that we don't care and will just invite more attacks.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

*View Poll Results: Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified*A question only for 20  or so people who voted Yes to the poll question. Are there times when attacking populated buildings in a city like as happened on 9/11 is justified?

Whatever justification/rationalization you may have used in your original answer to poll question, imagine a foreign entity uses same reasons in their rationalization (such as  bombing of Amiriyah civilian shelter in Iraq that had boiled burnt to death 400 children, women, civilians, a site that was visited by US peace groups after9/11).

----------


## Cabal

I also notice you continue to refuse to answer. Surprise, surprise.

'Rationalize' it any way you want, if that makes you feel better. You're still advocating mass murder by way of nuclear weapons no matter which way you'd like to spin it.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> I also notice you continue to refuse to answer. Surprise, surprise.
> 
> 'Rationalize' it any way you want, if that makes you feel better. You're still advocating mass murder by way of nuclear weapons no matter which way you'd like to spin it.


What do you mean? You're the one refusing to answer. 

It's absolutely okay to a country if their government nukes ours first. Innocent people will die. But they also mass murdered thousands of our own citizens. They brought it on themselves. You're just suggesting we do nothing at all. Because innocent civilians will always die in war, there's no way around it. And to use your example about murder, it'd be like asking someone to kill you and your family if you want to advertise you won't retaliate if someone attacks you.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> *View Poll Results: Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified*A question only for 20  or so people who voted Yes to the poll question. Are there times when attacking populated buildings in a city like as happened on 9/11 is justified?
> 
> Whatever justification/rationalization you may have used in your original answer to poll question, imagine a foreign entity uses same reasons in their rationalization (such as  bombing of Amiriyah civilian shelter in Iraq that had boiled burnt to death 400 children, women, civilians, a site that was visited by US peace groups after9/11).


There's a huge distinction between emergency apocalyptic scenarios (which to this day we've never experienced before and remain in the hypothetical) and blatant acts of targeting civilians in order to instill fear in a group of people (terrorism).  It's never right to bomb civilians for the sake of bombing civilians, but it is possible that in an emergency operation, some civilians will unfortunately have to die in order to ensure that greater destruction and loss of civilians doesn't occur.  We won't necessarily always have time to single out the source of danger from all civilians, and they can be hopelessly intermingled.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> It depends.  Can you be more specific?  How would a nuke be used in retaliation?  Is it only to nuke the air base where the runways and aircraft that were used to deploy the nuke, or the naval base?  Would America warn people in the targeted area that it's about to be bombed, what's going to be targeted, when it's going to happen, and why?  Even before the US nuked Japan, the US dropped a bunch of leaflets to alert people to expect fire bombings.  Are we sure it was them?  Is there another way of neutralizing the culprits, besides dropping a nuke on them?  There's always right ways and wrong ways to deal with problems.
> 
> When a building is taken down for a construction project with a controlled demolition, there has to be a point where the team pushing down on that plunger or trigger won't be liable if someone gets killed.  They cordon off the area, post warning signs, and check every crack and crevice to make sure no one's in the building - even though there were warnings not to trespass and that the building was going to be imploded.  If someone ignores the barriers, signs, and sneaks into the building, it's their fault if they get killed.
> 
> If there are hospitals, schools, nursing homes, etc. in the targeted area, perhaps you ought to give them fair warning with a reasonable amount of time to get those patients, children, elderly people, etc. away from the targeted area.  If you demonstrate that you made a fair and reasonable effort to see to it that you don't harm or kill someone who doesn't deserve it, then you may have an argument for why it was ok to retaliate the way you did.  Perhaps then it no longer needs to be considered a place with civilian populated buildings, just like the controlled demolition team can claim the building was vacant before they brought it down.  If someone chose not to leave and got harmed or killed in either of these cases, either way it was their fault, not the people pulling the triggers.


It would be justifiable to nuke them in the same way they nuked us. I would rather only attacking military bases but civilians will die then too. It just happens in war. And unless you want to bring on more attacks, you have to attack strong. Of course what we did to Japan was unjustified. But there are situations where it is. Hopefully we don't have to actually worry about this situation any time soon.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> There's a huge distinction between emergency apocalyptic scenarios (which to this day we've never experienced before and remain in the hypothetical) and blatant acts of targeting civilians in order to instill fear in a group of people (terrorism).  It's never right to bomb civilians for the sake of bombing civilians, but it is possible that in an emergency operation, some civilians will unfortunately have to die in order to ensure that greater destruction and loss of civilians doesn't occur.  We won't necessarily always have time to single out the source of danger from all civilians, and they can be hopelessly intermingled.


That's correct.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

..

----------


## Cabal

> What do you mean? You're the one refusing to answer. 
> 
> It's absolutely okay to a country if their government nukes ours first. Innocent people will die. But they also mass murdered thousands of our own citizens. They brought it on themselves. You're just suggesting we do nothing at all. Because innocent civilians will always die in war, there's no way around it. And to use your example about murder, it'd be like asking someone to kill you and your family if you want to advertise you won't retaliate if someone attacks you.


Is there anyone here who can translate neo-con?

I asked you a question in my first reply which you have yet to answer, because you know that if you do so honestly, you'll be contradicting yourself, and thus you're allowing your ego to obstruct your ability to reason.

I've not suggested "we" do "nothing at all"... at all. So either you're now blatantly lying about me to discredit my objections of your position, or you're holding that there are only two options--a) to nuke b) to do nothing. This is plainly fallacious logic, of course.

The more you say, the more difficult I find it to take you seriously.

----------


## otherone

> [h=2] Are there times when attacking populated buildings in a city like as happened on 9/11 is justified?


It's too bad the world trade center wasn't built in Japan in the forties.  We would have saved thousands of Japanese lives by simply flying a couple of planes into it instead of dropping atomic bombs.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> There's a huge distinction between emergency apocalyptic scenarios (which to this day we've never experienced before and remain in the hypothetical) and blatant acts of targeting civilians in order to instill fear in a group of people (terrorism).  It's never right to bomb civilians for the sake of bombing civilians, but it is possible that in an emergency operation, some civilians will unfortunately have to die in order to ensure that greater destruction and loss of civilians doesn't occur.  We won't necessarily always have time to single out the source of danger from all civilians, and they can be hopelessly intermingled.


If an Iraqi or Palestinian man sees his children, wife blown to bits by bomb dropped by a foreign government occupying his land or air space, is that "emergency apocalyptic scenarios" for him or not?   Not sure how you assumed that objective behind the scenario in above question was to "instill fear", is it same as "deterrant"?

An argument could be made that Heroshima city buildings had higher ratio of "civilians" than in the above scenario and objective was to "instill fear"/"terrorize". We may rationalize it as it suits our objectives, for many in Japan it was "terror":


*Terror of the Atomic Bomb,Hiroshima Nagasaki
*_www.mctv.ne.jp/~bigapple/‎_
_If your country has a possibility bombing the atomic one in the future, just think it over..... 500,000 of our lovely grandparents died in the flash with Radioactive ..._*Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history | Green Left ...*
_www.greenleft.org.au/node/31944‎_
_Aug 3, 2005 - Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history ... of the US atomic-bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki._*USA Terrorism: HiROSHiMA , NAGASAKi Atomic Bomb - YouTube*
_www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4x7G_AOL8k‎_
_Oct 19, 2007 - Uploaded by Iskauasten_

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> If an Iraqi or Palestinian man sees his children, wife blown to bits by bomb dropped by a foreign government occupying his land or air space, is that "emergency apocalyptic scenarios" for him or not?   Not sure how you assumed that objective behind the scenario in above question was to "instill fear", is it same as "deterrant"?
> 
> An argument could be made that Heroshima city buildings had higher ratio of "civilians" than in the above scenario.


If it is an "emergency apocalyptic scenario" for him, then he should make an effort to destroy the source of the attack to protect himself.  Organizing a plan to destroy an area with a concentrated civilian population doesn't accomplish that.

"Instilling fear" is a kind of "deterrent", but I would never advocate destroying civilians in order to simply instill fear.  If an attack is necessary out of self-defense then sometimes there's no other option.

----------


## pcosmar

> Defense can be making them adequately fear a retaliation, but obviously you don't actually have to in order to set up the fear.  Also, sometimes a retaliatory attack is defensive if you're trying to hinder them from attacking further, for example.


You like *Fear* as a tool? I do not.

Defense starts by first,  not giving any reason for such an attack. And secondly by effectively preventing such an attack.
If half our military budget for the last 100 years had gone towards actual defense we would be literally un-attackable.
Air defense,, Coastal Defense. But first,, Diplomatic. Give no reason and make peace with other nations so such an attack does not occur..

We have done the opposite of Defense my whole lifetime.

----------


## Contumacious

> Is there anyone here who can translate neo-con?.


*Are You a Neocon*?

 A *"neocon"* is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.."

.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> It would be justifiable to nuke them in the same way they nuked us.


Who is "they"?  In some cases it might be justifiable to nuke them in the same way they nuked us; but basically, I'm not convinced it would always be justifiable.




> I would rather only attacking military bases but civilians will die then too. It just happens in war. And unless you want to bring on more attacks, you have to attack strong.


You can attack as strong as you want, provided you're only attacking what needs to be attacked to neutralize the threat and you put an adequate amount of effort into not harming those who don't deserve it.




> Of course what we did to Japan was unjustified. But there are situations where it is. Hopefully we don't have to actually worry about this situation any time soon.


Perhaps what we did to Japan was unjustified; based on some of the arguments I've come across it does seem like it was unjustified.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> Is there anyone here who can translate neo-con?
> 
> I asked you a question in my first reply which you have yet to answer, because you know that if you do so honestly, you'll be contradicting yourself, and thus you're allowing your ego to obstruct your ability to reason.
> 
> I've not suggested "we" do "nothing at all"... at all. So either you're now blatantly lying about me to discredit my objections of your position, or you're holding that there are only two options--a) to nuke b) to do nothing. This is plainly fallacious logic, of course.
> 
> The more you say, the more difficult I find it to take you seriously.


I'm not a neo-con. I just think we have a right to defend ourselves and we have a right to retaliate against someone if we are attacked. If someone murders my entire family, I think they should be murdered. I wouldn't go out and murder them myself, but if somehow the person that murdered my entire family had his/her entire family murdered, I wouldn't feel sad about it. 

But you still don't really seem to understand that not all violence is equal. A civilian murdering a civilian isn't even remotely comparable to a country at war, much less a nuclear attack. A nuclear attack is the worst kind of attack possible. I've asked you and several times what we should do you and you refusing to answer the question and your view that it's never okay that a civilian die in a nuclear attack rules out any possibility of retaliation. Unless you suggest we just invade their country or do a few airstrikes, but you can't expect anyone would take us seriously after that. There are times when it is okay to use force, and being attacked justifies using force in response.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> Who is "they"?  In some cases it might be justifiable to nuke them in the same way they nuked us; but basically, I'm not convinced it would always be justifiable.
> 
> 
> You can attack as strong as you want, provided you're only attacking what needs to be attacked to neutralize the threat and you put an adequate amount of effort into not harming those who don't deserve it.
> 
> 
> Perhaps what we did to Japan was unjustified; based on some of the arguments I've come across it does seem like it was unjustified.


What we did to Japan was completely unjustified. They bombed us so we nuked them? That's excessive force and they mainly targeted our military operations at Pearl Harbor, but we bombed cities with large civilian populations. That is unjustified. 

But if some government of another country decided to drop a nuke on one of our major cities to inflict mass civilian casualties, it would not be unjustifiable for us to do the same. And we also shouldn't go around warning people about the attack either. That would be meaningless.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> If it is an "emergency apocalyptic scenario" for him, then he should make an effort to destroy the source of the attack to protect himself.  Organizing a plan to destroy an area with a concentrated civilian population doesn't accomplish that.
> 
> "Instilling fear" is a kind of "deterrent", but I would never advocate destroying civilians in order to simply instill fear.  If an attack is necessary out of self-defense then sometimes there's no other option.



So your position is that mass attack on a whole city and all its populated buildings using a WMD, essentially killing hundreds of thousands of civilians' is for "self defense" and is justified ?   In that case, what if US had bombed just Heroshima's few buildings such as its top financial, political, military center buildings killing couple of thousand people, that would have been still "self defense" or  that would have made it "terrorism"?

----------


## Neil Desmond

> What we did to Japan was completely unjustified. They bombed us so we nuked them? That's excessive force and they mainly targeted our military operations at Pearl Harbor, but we bombed cities with large civilian populations. That is unjustified.


That has nothing to do with whether or not it was justified.  If that were the case then what Zimmerman did to Trayvon would be unjustified, because he used a gun on someone who was using his fists to pummel him and his body to pin him down while he was doing that.




> But if some government of another country decided to drop a nuke on one of our major cities to inflict mass civilian casualties, it would not be unjustifiable for us to do the same.


Not necessarily.




> And we also shouldn't go around warning people about the attack either. That would be meaningless.


Yes, it would be very meaningful.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> So your position is that mass attack on a whole city and all its populated buildings using a WMD, essentially killing hundreds of thousands of civilians' is for "self defense" and is justified ?   In that case, what if US had bombed just Heroshima's few buildings such as its top financial, political, military center buildings killing couple of thousand people, that would have been still "self defense" or  that would have made it "terrorism"?


If it is for self-defense it can be justified.  Japan was never an immediate existential threat to the US or the world, so it's hard to justify any bombings over there which put civilians at risk, and even if they were a non-immediate existential threat, there's other more diplomatic routes that would've been far superior.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> You like *Fear* as a tool? I do not.


I do if it prevents us from getting attacked by nuclear weapons.  And the burden of fear would fall more upon the government and military than the civilians of the country.  Let's be honest: we're more likely not to get attacked if the potential attacker has something real to fear from attacking us.  If we were more afraid of countries that we decided to bomb, we probably wouldn't have done it.  And it would've been a good thing.




> Defense starts by first,  not giving any reason for such an attack. And secondly by effectively preventing such an attack.
> If half our military budget for the last 100 years had gone towards actual defense we would be literally un-attackable.
> Air defense,, Coastal Defense. But first,, Diplomatic. Give no reason and make peace with other nations so such an attack does not occur..
> 
> We have done the opposite of Defense my whole lifetime.


And I agree with this.

----------


## Cabal

I don't think the State can make any valid claim of self-defense.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> That has nothing to do with whether or not it was justified.  If that were the case then what Zimmerman did to Trayvon would be unjustified, because he used a gun on someone who was using his fists to pummel him and his body to pin him down while he was doing that.
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be very meaningful.


No. Using a gun in self defense is meant to protect yourself from people without guns. That's justifiable. But us nuking Japan because they attacked Pearl Harbor is excessive in the same way that Palestine attacks Israel with a small rocket and then Israel retaliates with 20 or so larger rockets. It's disproportionate and excessive force. 

And if we warned civilians of an attack they could possibly warn the government so they could stop the attack from happening, which defeats the entire purpose. So no, you aren't going to tell someone when you're going to attack them.

----------


## twomp

> No. Using a gun in self defense is meant to protect yourself from people without guns. That's justifiable. But us nuking Japan because they attacked Pearl Harbor is excessive in the same way that Palestine attacks Israel with a small rocket and then Israel retaliates with 20 or so larger rockets. It's disproportionate and excessive force.


Yeah and one nuke wasn't good enough. We went in for seconds. Not our brightest moment.

----------


## Kregisen

Without reading much of the past 27 pages of replies, my answer is yes.

If a gunman takes a hostage as a human shield and starts shooting you, you have the right to shoot back no matter if the hostage dies or not. The hostage's death is not on you - it is on the gunman.

Likewise, if a foreign government invades you, you have the right to do use anything in your disposal to stop the invading country. This includes destroying any factories in a city with "civilians", this includes destroying the roads and infrastructure, this includes wiping out 16 year old boys who will be drafted into the Japanese army in a month, this includes anything else that the invading country values. You must stop them at any cost. 

And the a-bombs did. 

Some people will say that the a-bombs should never have been dropped and we should have sent our innocent 18-year old civilians-turned-military kids over there to die for our innocent country with many japanese, both military and civilians dying, instead of ending the war as soon as possible with less loss for us. In my mind, that is simply ridiculous.

I'm very anti-war but not anti-justified war. We shouldn't be in Iraq, we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, but we should have destroyed japan asap until they surrendered. Some people on these forums get the 2 notions confused, or simply go with the flow of everyone else on this board because they have to. Think for yourself.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Likewise, if a foreign government invades you, you have the right to do use anything in your disposal to stop the invading country. This includes destroying any factories in a city with "civilians", this includes destroying the roads and infrastructure, this includes wiping out 16 year old boys who will be drafted into the Japanese army in a month, this includes anything else that the invading country values. You must stop them at any cost.


By this standard, 9/11 was justified.  Do you understand this?

----------


## Brett85

> We have entirely different views of Defense.
> 
> What you are describing is retaliation not defense..


Like someone else said, the threat of retaliation is part of defense.  The principle of deterrence is part of defense and makes our country safer.

----------


## AuH20

> Without reading much of the past 27 pages of replies, my answer is yes.
> 
> If a gunman takes a hostage as a human shield and starts shooting you, you have the right to shoot back no matter if the hostage dies or not. The hostage's death is not on you - it is on the gunman.
> 
> Likewise, if a foreign government invades you, you have the right to do use anything in your disposal to stop the invading country. This includes destroying any factories in a city with "civilians", this includes destroying the roads and infrastructure, this includes wiping out 16 year old boys who will be drafted into the Japanese army in a month, this includes anything else that the invading country values. You must stop them at any cost. 
> 
> And the a-bombs did. 
> 
> Some people will say that the a-bombs should never have been dropped and we should have sent our innocent 18-year old civilians-turned-military kids over there to die for our innocent country with many japanese, both military and civilians dying, instead of ending the war as soon as possible with less loss for us. In my mind, that is simply ridiculous.
> ...


That pretty much sums it up. There are conflicts not of our choosing that we must finish for the sake of personal self-preservation. Do you think the Japanese, in all their viciousness, would have stopped their war effort if we sent them an apology for FDR's concealment of the attack? Probably not.

----------


## AuH20

> No. Using a gun in self defense is meant to protect yourself from people without guns. That's justifiable. *But us nuking Japan because they attacked Pearl Harbor is excessive* in the same way that Palestine attacks Israel with a small rocket and then Israel retaliates with 20 or so larger rockets. It's disproportionate and excessive force. 
> 
> And if we warned civilians of an attack they could possibly warn the government so they could stop the attack from happening, which defeats the entire purpose. So no, you aren't going to tell someone when you're going to attack them.


It had more to do with finishing the job, which was the primary goal of the Pacific campaign. The Americans didn't take massive casualties at Okinawa or Iwo Jima so they could give the Japanese a mild mannered slap on the wrist. An exterminator doesn't kill a couple termites and then picks up & leaves. He makes sure the nest is no longer functional so the erosion of the structure ceases.

----------


## pcosmar

> Like someone else said, the threat of retaliation is part of defense.  The principle of deterrence is part of defense and makes our country safer.



No,, That is the crap that MADmen have been spewing for years.

I visible sidearm is a deterrent to assault. A well armed population is a deterrent to invasion.

Retaliation is Bombing the guys family or neighborhood over an assault. it is not a deterrent. it is the act of a madman.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It had more to do with finishing the job, which was the primary goal of the Pacific campaign. The Americans didn't take massive casualties at Okinawa or Iwo Jima so they could give the Japanese a mild mannered slap on the wrist. An exterminator doesn't kill a couple termites and then picks up & leaves. He makes sure the nest is no longer functional so the erosion of the structure ceases.


This ridiculous analogy fails because the "termites" weren't in the _civilian_ cities that were bombed.  Comprende?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> By this standard, 9/11 was justified.  Do you understand this?


+rep for u, kiddo!

----------


## Brett85

> No,, That is the crap that MADmen have been spewing for years.
> 
> I visible sidearm is a deterrent to assault. A well armed population is a deterrent to invasion.
> 
> Retaliation is Bombing the guys family or neighborhood over an assault. it is not a deterrent. it is the act of a madman.


So you prefer an ideology of pacifism over non intervention?

----------


## AuH20

> This ridiculous analogy fails because the "termites" weren't in the _civilian_ cities that were bombed.  Comprende?


Those civilians would have quickly turned into termites the moment those marines first hit the beach. The civilians had their orders to engage the incoming force with sharpened bamboo sticks.

----------


## pcosmar

> It had more to do with finishing the job, which was the primary goal of the Pacific campaign. The Americans didn't take massive casualties at Okinawa or Iwo Jima so they could give the Japanese a mild mannered slap on the wrist. An exterminator doesn't kill a couple termites and then picks up & leaves. He makes sure the nest is no longer functional so the erosion of the structure ceases.


Well that makes no sense at all WRT Japan.

They were utterly defeated Militarily..and the country in shambles...It was nothing political,, Retaliation and a message to Russia.

As far as leaving the "Hive",, we went into massive debt rebuilding it.. Can you say Contradiction?

----------


## twomp

> Those civilians would have quickly turned into termites the moment those marines first hit the beach. The civilians had their orders to engage the incoming force with sharpened bamboo sticks.


Wouldn't we do the same if the Japanese stormed our beaches? It doesn't mean we should be nuked for it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Those civilians would have quickly turned into termites the moment those marines first hit the beach. The civilians had their orders to engage the incoming force with sharpened bamboo sticks.


One reason one need not invade civilian areas.  You'd likely fight back too if your city was invaded by foreign imperialists-even if all you had was farm tools. (many of the common weapons of Okinawa started as farm tools, btw-like the kama)

----------


## twomp

> One reason one need not invade civilian areas.  You'd likely fight back too if your city was invaded by foreign imperialists-even if all you had was farm tools. (many of the common weapons of Okinawa started as farm tools, btw-like the kama)


Yes I would fight back if they came for my home. No matter how much I disagree with the Bush/Obama foreign policy. And I don't think my family should be nuked for that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Let's look at it this way: the leaders of some country have decided they've had enough of the imperialist American government and decides to eliminate it by nuking Washington, D.C.  I, a peacenik anarchist, happens to be in town on that particular day.  

Is my murder justified?

Of course not.  And this is the problem with the way almost everyone on this planet thinks - they conjure these collectivist notions... they refer to us as "Americans", as though we are monolithic; "we" refer to "them" as "muslims", or "commies", or "nazis", or whatever the group-du-jour may be. 

And you people who answered in the affirmative - you're no different... AND YOU ARE NO ALLIES OF MINE.

----------


## AuH20

> Wouldn't we do the same if the Japanese stormed our beaches? It doesn't mean we should be nuked for it.


Yes, such is the way of war. Collectives fight against a _ perceived_ "collective" in war. The notion of the individual goes out the window in such large scale conflicts. We have too many people operating under this false assumption, when total war makes no differentiation largely between individuals and the collective. The horrible people who voted "yes" don't necessarily like this reality, but we at least acknowledge it.

----------


## AuH20

> Let's look at it this way: the leaders of some country have decided they've had enough of the imperialist American government and decides to eliminate it by nuking Washington, D.C.  I, a peacenik anarchist, happens to be in town on that particular day.  
> 
> *Is my murder justified?*
> 
> Of course not.  And this is the problem with the way almost everyone on this planet thinks - they conjure these collectivist notions... they refer to us as "Americans", as though we are monolithic; "we" refer to "them" as "muslims", or "commies", or "nazis", or whatever the group-du-jour may be. 
> 
> And you people who answered in the affirmative - you're no different... AND YOU ARE NO ALLIES OF MINE.


But how will _you_ convince the aggressor nation that your murder is not justified? Therein lies the problem.

----------


## DamianTV

So who is going to enforce any possible "Do Not Murder Non Enemy Combatants" act without murdering non enemy combatants?  A Govt for Govts?  And will this Govt of Govts be trustworthy?  Will this Super Govt be held accountable for its own misdeeds?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

NASA discovers that a rogue comet the size of Texas will annihilate Earth in eighteen days. NASA scientists plan to bury a nuclear device deep inside the asteroid that, when detonated, will split the asteroid in two, driving the pieces apart so both will fly safely past the Earth. NASA contacts the best deep-sea oil driller in the world, who happens to be a pregnant woman. NASA launches her into space in a shuttle named Freedom. Freedom lands safely, but misses the target area by twenty-six miles, so the pregnant woman must now drill through an area of compressed iron ferrite rather than the targeted softer stone. She falls irreparably behind schedule and communications are about to fail.

----------


## willwash

> Without reading much of the past 27 pages of replies, my answer is yes.
> 
> If a gunman takes a hostage as a human shield and starts shooting you, you have the right to shoot back no matter if the hostage dies or not. The hostage's death is not on you - it is on the gunman.
> 
> Likewise, if a foreign government invades you, you have the right to do use anything in your disposal to stop the invading country. This includes destroying any factories in a city with "civilians", this includes destroying the roads and infrastructure, this includes wiping out 16 year old boys who will be drafted into the Japanese army in a month, this includes anything else that the invading country values. You must stop them at any cost. 
> 
> And the a-bombs did. 
> 
> Some people will say that the a-bombs should never have been dropped and we should have sent our innocent 18-year old civilians-turned-military kids over there to die for our innocent country with many japanese, both military and civilians dying, instead of ending the war as soon as possible with less loss for us. In my mind, that is simply ridiculous.
> ...


That is similar to what I was saying a few pages back.  If you accept our strategic objective of compelling an unconditional Japanese surrender as a given, then the nuclear attack was probably justified, because a conventional-only conquest ofjapan would have killed untold legions of our men, and it probably would have killed more Japanese in the long run too.

What I disagree with, though, is that unconditional surrender was a necessary or even morally valid strategic objective at that time.  No honor would have been lost, and a lot of damage would have been spared, if we'd have been open to a more traditional negotiated peace and opened talks in late 1944 or so.  But we were so hellbent on revenge for Pearl Harbor that from the moment of that attack, the only way the war was ending was either on Japanese victory terms or Japanese unconditional surrender.  I don't think much was gained, and a lot was lost, from that vindictive attitude on our part.

----------


## Antischism

Moving goal posts and making ridiculous analogies: The thread.

----------


## pcosmar

> So you prefer an ideology of pacifism over non intervention?


I prefer nonintervention. I am neither a pacifist nor a Mass murderer. 

I am a firm believer in self defense,,and by extension national defense.

I just do not believe that Massive retaliation is moral nor rational,, and it is certainly not defense.

A good defense would have been to not provoke the war IN THE FIRST PLACE.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> But how will _you_ convince the aggressor nation that your murder is not justified? Therein lies the problem.


What does that matter?  The question is, "are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified?"  And the answer is, "NO".  

I am NEVER going to be a willing party to the murder of innocent people.  NEVER.  I do not give one single, solitary $#@! what labels and scenarios you conjure to justify it.  Not "pre-emption", not "self-defense", not "retaliation".  

YOUR problem is that you believe that the labels you've affixed to other human beings and yourself are representations of reality.  

Step on my property with evil intent, and then we have a conversation.  Until then, the answer to this hypothetical is quite simple: random wholesale murder of innocent human beings is NEVER justified.  EVER.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Like someone else said, the threat of retaliation is part of defense.  The principle of deterrence is part of defense and makes our country safer.


The threat thereof, yeah.  If you made me President tomorrow, I wouldn't just dismantle our nuclear arsenal.  

But once someone already nuked us, what's the point?

If its somebody with enough nukes to destroy the country, we're screwed anyway.  If not, we could just take them over with conventional armies and then execute their murderous leaders in the middle of the street.




> So you prefer an ideology of pacifism over non intervention?


I've got no problem with killing in self-defense, or even putting a convicted murderer or rapist to death. 

I have a problem with the kind of indiscriminate killing that carpet bombing the Middle East causes, even if, hypothetically, their government did attack us first.




> Let's look at it this way: the leaders of some country have decided they've had enough of the imperialist American government and decides to eliminate it by nuking Washington, D.C.  I, a peacenik anarchist, happens to be in town on that particular day.  
> 
> Is my murder justified?
> 
> Of course not.  And this is the problem with the way almost everyone on this planet thinks - they conjure these collectivist notions... they refer to us as "Americans", as though we are monolithic; "we" refer to "them" as "muslims", or "commies", or "nazis", or whatever the group-du-jour may be. 
> 
> And you people who answered in the affirmative - you're no different... AND YOU ARE NO ALLIES OF MINE.


There's some truth to  all of this, and I'm still breaking out of some of the collectivism I've been indoctrinated with.

At the same time, I'm not going to automatically call someone an enemy just because they aren't quite where I'm at.  I understand the nuke Japan mentality, because that's where I was a year and a half ago.

At the same time... its wrong.  Period.  

I'm not going to vote against otherwise libertarian candidates because of hypothetical situations like this, but I will nonetheless stand up to collectivism when I see it.




> What does that matter?  The question is, "are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified?"  And the answer is, "NO".  
> 
> I am NEVER going to be a willing party to the murder of innocent people.  NEVER.  I do not give one single, solitary $#@! what labels and scenarios you conjure to justify it.  Not "pre-emption", not "self-defense", not "retaliation".  
> 
> YOUR problem is that you believe that the labels you've affixed to other human beings and yourself are representations of reality.  
> 
> Step on my property with evil intent, and then we have a conversation.  Until then, the answer to this hypothetical is quite simple: random wholesale murder of innocent human beings is NEVER justified.  EVER.


Actually, technically there could be a theoretical case in which a city was populated only by murderers, in which case carpet bombing or even nuking that city could be justified.   But that would never happen in reality.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> No. Using a gun in self defense is meant to protect yourself from people without guns. That's justifiable.


So far, we are in agreement.




> But us nuking Japan because they attacked Pearl Harbor is excessive in the same way that Palestine attacks Israel with a small rocket and then Israel retaliates with 20 or so larger rockets. It's disproportionate and excessive force.


Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong.  Being disproportionate is not necessarily excessive, just like using a gun on someone in self defense against someone who isn't armed with a gun isn't necessarily excessive either.  It depends on whether the force is being used strictly to neutralize a threat or to lash out with collective punishment without regard to innocent human life.

BTW, Japan did far more than just attack Pearl Harbor.  The attack on Pearl Harbor is just the most famous incident because it was the first attack against the U.S., it was a surprise attack, and it's what brought the U.S. into the war.  It wasn't Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, then nothing happens between Japan and the U.S. for three and a half years, then we nuke Japan twice and they surrender.




> And if we warned civilians of an attack they could possibly warn the government so they could stop the attack from happening, which defeats the entire purpose. So no, you aren't going to tell someone when you're going to attack them.


I didn't specify anything about directing warnings exclusively to civilians, and of course it's highly probable that these civilians in question would warn its government; that's essentially common sense & it would be absurd to think otherwise.  I'm talking about a publicly announced or broadcasted warnings, just like we did when we dropped leaflets over japan telling them we were going to attack them; I had just discussed this in one of my recent posts on this thread.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic
> 
> 
> One which does not kill innocent people is the only moral response.
> 
> 
> Sometimes that is impossible.


What would be impossible about it? Why couldn't one allow "innocents" to be murdered en masse, while refraining from personally killing any "innocents" himself?




> the leaders of some country have decided they've had enough of the imperialist American government and decides to eliminate it by nuking Washington, D.C. I, a peacenik anarchist, happens to be in town on that particular day. 
> 
> Is my murder justified?
> 
> Of course not.  And this is the problem with the way almost everyone on this planet thinks


If your way of thinking is justified, and you act according to your principles, then what does it matter what anyone else thinks or does?




> One which leads to the least amount of deaths of innocent people would be the appropriate response in that case.


Why would morality require action to minimize the death of "innocents"? Supposing there is an afterlife, what if God sent an aggressor to Earth as a test? Those who killed "innocents" to stop the aggressor would be judged immoral and treated accordingly by God. Those who stood down and allowed the aggressor to take over the Earth would be judged moral by God.




> No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…


But no loser of any Earthly war will get to make the Earthly rules.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I've got no problem with killing in self-defense


Neither do I.  Self-defense isn't at issue here.




> At the same time, I'm not going to automatically call someone an enemy just because they aren't quite where I'm at.  I understand the nuke Japan mentality, because that's where I was a year and a half ago.
> 
> At the same time... its wrong.  Period.


That's fine and understandable.  The problem for someone like me is that I recognize the fundamental moral issue, and I can't just give it a pass just because I was mislead once myself.  

And I didn't say they were my enemy.  I said they were no ally of mine.  That being said, someone running for political office who for whatever reason held such a position, regardless of their otherwise stellar "libertarian" credentials, would NOT receive my vote.  Job number one, if there is going to be a political office at all, is to do no harm... and initiating the use of WMD's is pretty freaking high up there on the list of doing harm, theoretical/hypothetical or not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Neither do I.  Self-defense isn't at issue here.


Yeah, I know.  I was disagreeing with Traditional Conservative's definition of "Self-defense."




> That's fine and understandable.  The problem for someone like me is that I recognize the fundamental moral issue, and I can't just give it a pass just because I was mislead once myself.  
> 
> And I didn't say they were my enemy.  I said they were no ally of mine.  That being said, someone running for political office who for whatever reason held such a position, regardless of their otherwise stellar "libertarian" credentials, would NOT receive my vote.  Job number one, if there is going to be a political office at all, is to do no harm... and initiating the use of WMD's is pretty freaking high up there on the list of doing harm, theoretical/hypothetical or not.


I just had a massive awakening regarding just how evil the pro-Hiroshima and Nagasaki  bombing view is.  I came around to oppose those awhile ago, but it really just hit me... like... that's literally the same argument that was used to justify 9/11.  And in so doing, I became absolutely disgusted, even more than I have before, with flag waving neoconservatives and their military worship, and especially the prevalence of such in churches.

And I decided: you know what, if I have any say in it, I'm not going ANYWHERE for Memorial Day or the 4th of July again.  When I get my own place, I'll have a Southern flag flying high on both days, until then, I'll settle for staying home from wherever my family decides to go on those days.

But I will not celebrate anymore.


And... I don't believe ANY war that the US has participated in since 1812 (Or 1861 if you count the CSA as being in the US) was justified.  I even go as far as to say "We should not have done anything to stop the Holocaust."

All that said, you STILL probably wouldn't vote for me for President, because I would not go on public television and say "You know, if some enemy of ours decided to nuke us, I wouldn't nuke them back."  I would NEVER say that, because to do so would be to undermine national security, yet not even save any innocent lives.  The POTENTIAL THREAT of MAD saves lives, not destroys them.

Now, if push came to shove, would I nuke a nation that nuked mine?  No.  That would be murder.  Or at least, if I did, I would accept being executed for mass murder.  But I wouldn't tell the world that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

No one running for president is ever going to say anything that would appeal to me.  And the odds of me finding someone palatable enough to vote for - outside of Ron Paul - are exceedingly slim.  

And I realize that makes me a more than marginal political demographic.  I don't really care.  I'll spend enough time in front of St. Peter without having to justify my support of murderers and thieves.  God forgive me for everything else.

----------


## Brett85

> The threat thereof, yeah.  If you made me President tomorrow, I wouldn't just dismantle our nuclear arsenal.  
> 
> But once someone already nuked us, what's the point?
> 
> If its somebody with enough nukes to destroy the country, we're screwed anyway.  If not, we could just take them over with conventional armies and then execute their murderous leaders in the middle of the street.


The threat of retaliation to a nuclear strike is meaningless if that threat isn't actually carried out if our country were ever attacked with a nuclear bomb.  Other countries have to know that we'll actually follow through on our threats, otherwise it will just be an empty threat if we say that we'll use nuclear force in response to a nuclear attack and not actually do it.  It wouldn't serve as a deterrent if a country didn't believe that we would ever use it.  Also, taking over a country with a conventional army can arguably end up killing more innocent people than even a nuclear bomb.  The Iraq invasion ended up killing over a million Iraqis.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> Yeah, I know.  I was disagreeing with Traditional Conservative's definition of "Self-defense."
> 
> 
> 
> I just had a massive awakening regarding just how evil the pro-Hiroshima and Nagasaki  bombing view is.  I came around to oppose those awhile ago, but it really just hit me... like... that's literally the same argument that was used to justify 9/11.  And in so doing, I became absolutely disgusted, even more than I have before, with flag waving neoconservatives and their military worship, and especially the prevalence of such in churches.
> 
> And I decided: you know what, if I have any say in it, I'm not going ANYWHERE for Memorial Day or the 4th of July again.  When I get my own place, I'll have a Southern flag flying high on both days, until then, I'll settle for staying home from wherever my family decides to go on those days.
> 
> But I will not celebrate anymore.
> ...



Then what would you do? You say you wouldn't go on TV and say you wouldn't nuke in retaliation because that would be a threat to national security, but if someone nukes us, and we just do an airstrike on them or invade them, wouldn't that be threatening to national security as well? That would certainly make us look vulnerable if we couldn't stand up to an aggressor.

----------


## Kregisen

> By this standard, 9/11 was justified.  Do you understand this?


I understand where you're going with this but I don't think it's the same thing. Japan attacking and invading the U.S. is a little bit different than the U.S. occupying some countries in the middle east that some extremists view as "their holy land". I believe most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and we were not in Saudi Arabia at that time, much less bombing it.



I'm not at all defending the u.s. foreign policy of the past 60 years by the way. But it's still nowhere near the same thing.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I understand where you're going with this but I don't think it's the same thing. Japan attacking and invading the U.S. is a little bit different than the U.S. occupying some countries in the middle east that some extremists view as "their holy land". I believe most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and we were not in Saudi Arabia at that time, much less bombing it.
> 
> I'm not at all defending the u.s. foreign policy of the past 60 years by the way. But it's still nowhere near the same thing.


We had a military base there. It was long a contention of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and Paul Wolfowitz and many others stated it was a motivating factor in the 9/11 attacks in their decision to close it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No one running for president is ever going to say anything that would appeal to me.  And the odds of me finding someone palatable enough to vote for - outside of Ron Paul - are exceedingly slim.


I don't think Ron Paul would admit to opposing that type of retaliatory strike either.  He might agree with us, but I don't think he'd broadcast that to the entire world either.

I believe I'm as libertarian as Ron Paul is, even more so on some issues, although I get that some ancaps think that Ron Paul is also secretly an ancap.  I can tell you right now, I'm not, although I'm close.



> And I realize that makes me a more than marginal political demographic.  I don't really care.  I'll spend enough time in front of St. Peter without having to justify my support of murderers and thieves.  God forgive me for everything else.


Peter isn't your judge, Jesus Christ is.  That said, I get your point.

So far I'm backing Rand, but at the same point, that's definitely a compromise.  God forgive me for TRYING to help fix this screwed up country.  




> The threat of retaliation to a nuclear strike is meaningless if that threat isn't actually carried out if our country were ever attacked with a nuclear bomb.  Other countries have to know that we'll actually follow through on our threats, otherwise it will just be an empty threat if we say that we'll use nuclear force in response to a nuclear attack and not actually do it.  It wouldn't serve as a deterrent if a country didn't believe that we would ever use it.  Also, taking over a country with a conventional army can arguably end up killing more innocent people than even a nuclear bomb.  The Iraq invasion ended up killing over a million Iraqis.


I believe the official stats are 110K or so.  Not that I trust them, but I'm just pointing it out because the official stats are bad enough and I remember being corrected for saying a million before.

If a single nuke, or a few nukes, were used, I'd support assassination of the leaders involved, and a threat to kill any new leader that didn't immediately sign a peace treaty and disarm any remaining nuclear weapons or anything else that a common civilian would not be allowed to own.  

On the other hand,  if a nation like Russia just launched hundreds of nukes at us, would it even matter if we destroyed Russia in retaliation?  Why would it even matter?

In any case, I can't advocate DELIBERATELY killing civilians to make any kind of political point, although I can understand why you'd disagree with me on this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No one running for president is ever going to say anything that would appeal to me.  And the odds of me finding someone palatable enough to vote for - outside of Ron Paul - are exceedingly slim.  
> 
> And I realize that makes me a more than marginal political demographic.  I don't really care.  I'll spend enough time in front of St. Peter without having to justify my support of murderers and thieves.  God forgive me for everything else.





> I understand where you're going with this but I don't think it's the same thing. Japan attacking and invading the U.S. is a little bit different than the U.S. occupying some countries in the middle east that some extremists view as "their holy land". I believe most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and we were not in Saudi Arabia at that time, much less bombing it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not at all defending the u.s. foreign policy of the past 60 years by the way. But it's still nowhere near the same thing.


"Holy Land" need not have anything to do with it.  If our liberal, anti-American government let Russia set up bases there, it still wouldn't be wrong for the people, who own this country, to attack the Russian bases and drive them out.

It would NOT, however, be justifiable to attack civilians in Russia.

----------


## twomp

> I understand where you're going with this but I don't think it's the same thing. Japan attacking and invading the U.S. is a little bit different than the U.S. occupying some countries in the middle east that some extremists view as "their holy land". I believe most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and we were not in Saudi Arabia at that time, much less bombing it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not at all defending the u.s. foreign policy of the past 60 years by the way. But it's still nowhere near the same thing.


We had a military base there at the time as well as giving money, helicopters, jets and tanks to the dictatorship that is oppressing the people there. By some accounts, a dictatorship just as brutal as Assad's in Syria. They used the sins of our government to attack the citizens of our country, many of whom had no idea what our government was up to at the time.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> we were not in Saudi Arabia at that time


Bin Laden statement in 1996:




> Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places....
> 
> The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance. All false claims and propaganda about "Human Rights" were hammered down and exposed by the massacres that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world.
> 
> The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet ... is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places -the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims- by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies....


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...atwa_1996.html

Bin Laden interview with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997:




> REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States? 
> 
> BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. They should have been considerate that the qibla (Mecca) of the Muslims upheaves the emotion of the entire Muslim World. Due to its subordination to the Jews the arrogance and haughtiness of the US regime has reached, to the extent that they occupied the qibla of the Muslims (Arabia) who are more than a billion in the world today. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries. As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of The Two Holy Places. The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country. Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims. A reaction might take place as a result of US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars....
> 
> Q. What are your future plans? 
> 
> BIN LADIN: You'll see them and hear about them in the media....


http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle7204.htm

Bin Laden in 2002:




> Why are we fighting and opposing you?
> 
> As for the first question: ... The answer is very simple:
> 
> (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us....
> 
> ... your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
> 
> (b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.
> ...


http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...24/theobserver

Bin Laden in 2004:




> Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us. 
> 
> This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th. 
> 
> And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.


http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/200...336457223.html

----------


## Christian Liberty

What Mr. Bin Laden never knew, and what 95+% of the US population does not understand, is the fact that killing CIVILIANS remains murder no matter what the government does.

----------


## AuH20

> Yeah, I know.  I was disagreeing with Traditional Conservative's definition of "Self-defense."
> 
> 
> 
> I just had a massive awakening regarding just how evil the pro-Hiroshima and Nagasaki  bombing view is. * I came around to oppose those awhile ago, but it really just hit me... like... that's literally the same argument that was used to justify 9/11.*  And in so doing, I became absolutely disgusted, even more than I have before, with flag waving neoconservatives and their military worship, and especially the prevalence of such in churches.
> 
> And I decided: you know what, if I have any say in it, I'm not going ANYWHERE for Memorial Day or the 4th of July again.  When I get my own place, I'll have a Southern flag flying high on both days, until then, I'll settle for staying home from wherever my family decides to go on those days.
> 
> But I will not celebrate anymore.
> ...


It's not really comparable. We lost 40,000 Americans alone at Iwo Jima. How many at 911? 3,000? 911 was a manufactured blip on the screen as opposed to a tense worldwide conflict.  The Pacific campaign was a prolonged, fierce affair from one location to the next finally culminating with the fateful decision to avoid a costly invasion via the bombs.

----------


## Christian Liberty

You misunderstand my point.

If you support the atomic bombings, you should support the 9/11 ATTACKS.  Not our response to them.  Because we were the aggressors against the Middle East.  Which still doesn't make killing civilians OK.

----------


## AuH20

> You misunderstand my point.
> 
> If you support the atomic bombings, you should support the 9/11 ATTACKS.  Not our response to them. * Because we were the aggressors against the Middle East.*  Which still doesn't make killing civilians OK.


Huh? The same Saudis that have been living like kings at our expense thanks to OPEC? The royal family sure has been abused by the good ole USA.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Huh? The same Saudis that have been living like kings at our expense thanks to OPEC? The royal family sure has been abused by the good ole USA.


Not the Kings, their country.  We have no right to control bases in their territory, even if the Saudi Government is willing to let them do it.  Kind of like how even if Obama let Russia have military bases in America, we'd still be justified in fighting to get them out of OUR country.

----------


## eduardo89

> Not the Kings, their country.  We have no right to control bases in their territory, even if the Saudi Government is willing to let them do it.  Kind of like how even if Obama let Russia have military bases in America, we'd still be justified in fighting to get them out of OUR country.


Wtf are you taking about? Yes, the Saudi government has the authority to allow US bases on its soil.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wtf are you taking about? Yes, the Saudi government has the authority to allow US bases on its soil.


And therein lies the assumption that government is inherently the owner of land.

I believe that we should have pulled out of those bases before 9/11 happened, and considering that we did not, we should have pulled out immediately after 9/11 happened.  Rather than destroying our freedoms over the "War on Terror."  If that means I support "Appeasement" I can live with that.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> What Mr. Bin Laden never knew... killing CIVILIANS remains murder


He did not drive the planes, he just _funded_ the murder.




> And the odds of me finding someone palatable enough to vote for - outside of Ron Paul - are exceedingly slim. 
> 
> And I realize that makes me a more than marginal political demographic. I don't really care. I'll spend enough time in front of St. Peter without having to justify my support of murderers and thieves.  God forgive me for everything else.


If there is an afterlife, and you answer Yes to the question "Did you fund the killing of innocent civilians", they might just cut the interview short and send you on your way?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He did not drive the planes, he just _funded the murder.
> _


Which is besides the point, seeing as how I was criticizing Bin Laden for supporting the attacks, not for doing them himself.





> If there is an afterlife, and you answer Yes to the question "Did you fund the killing of innocent civilians", they might just cut the interview short and send you on your way.


I guess anyone who pays income taxes is going to Hell?

----------


## eduardo89

> And therein lies the assumption that government is inherently the owner of land.


No it doesn't...




> I believe that we should have pulled out of those bases before 9/11 happened, and considering that we did not, we should have pulled out immediately after 9/11 happened.  Rather than destroying our freedoms over the "War on Terror."  If that means I support "Appeasement" I can live with that.


I agree with that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree with that.




I'm glad.

So, why does the US have any right to hold bases in other countries?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I guess anyone who pays income taxes is going to Hell?


Supposing there is an afterlife, what if God sent an aggressor to Earth as a test? The aggressor demanded that you fund the killing of innocent civilians. Those who refused to fund it might do some prison time on Earth but would be judged moral by God. Those who funded murder would be judged immoral and treated accordingly by God. They might cry to God, "but everyone else was doing it too, so I guessed You wouldn't mind. Plus, I didn't want to go to prison"; and God would just look at them blankly and send them on their way.

----------


## eduardo89

> So, why does the US have any right to hold bases in other countries?


Why wouldn't it? Where in the Constitution is the federal government prohibited from having bases in another country? As long as it is in the persuence of national security, which is a legitimate constitutional function, then it is perfectly constitutional to have foreign bases.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why wouldn't it? Where in the Constitution is the federal government prohibited from having bases in another country? As long as it is in the persuence of national security, which is a legitimate constitutional function, then it is perfectly constitutional to have foreign bases.


See Federalist No. 45.  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.htm  If you believe Madison, the FedGov powers are "few and enumerated".  Placing bases in foreign territory is not enumerated in teh CONstitution and not a legitimate constitutional function...unless you twist the language of the document into knots and do some funny mental gymnastics (which the Anti-Federalists correctly predicted would happen).

----------


## eduardo89

> See Federalist No. 45.  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.htm  If you believe Madison, the FedGov powers are "few and enumerated".  Placing bases in foreign territory is not enumerated in teh CONstitution and not a legitimate constitutional function...unless you twist the language of the document into knots and do some funny mental gymnastics (which the Anti-Federalists correctly predicted would happen).


National defense certainly is an enumerated power. Whether foreign bases are wise policy is anoth discussion, but it certainly is constitutional.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> National defense certainly is an enumerated power. Whether foreign bases are wise policy is anoth discussion, but it certainly is constitutional.


 As I expected, you're doing some serious mental gymnastics.  What historical document leads you to think that foreign bases are legitimate "defense"?  Would the Russian regime for (example) be justified in putting bases somewhere in mainland America?  They have plenty of reason to be nervous about the US regime.

Thoroughly unconvincing, but at least you tried.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

Is it justified to kill non-combatant civilians (e.g. Bin Laden) for funding murder.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

If someone threatens to put you in prison unless you drop WMD's on cities with civilian populated buildings. You can say you had to do it to stay out of prison. Good enough justification?

----------


## bolil

Are there times when wholesale slaughter of a population containing innocents is justified? Well, if you answe in the affirmative and know a child please take the time to explain to that child exactly why they deserve death.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If someone threatens to put you in prison unless you drop WMD's on cities with civilian populated buildings. You can say you had to do it to stay out of prison. Good enough justification?


 Terrible justification.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Are there times when wholesale slaughter of a population containing innocents is justified? Well, if you answe in the affirmative and know a child please take the time to explain to that child exactly why they deserve death.


Not only why they may 'deserve' death but why their children _may_ be born with extra limbs or two pound tumors.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Are there times when wholesale slaughter of a population containing innocents is justified? Well, if you answer in the affirmative and know a child please take the time to explain to that child exactly why they deserve death.


Are there times when wholesale slaughter of a population containing innocents is justified? If not, please explain to every child exactly why you would allow this comet to kill him.

Would you give free reign to an aggressor because he positioned his command and control centers amidst "innocent civilians"? If so, please explain to every child exactly why you would allow the aggressor to kill him.

----------


## bolil

> Would you give free reign to an aggressor because he positioned his command and control centers amidst "innocent civilians"? If so, please explain to every child exactly why you would allow the aggressor to kill him.


An aggressor? Yes, let us take that route. An aggressor, is by dur duh definition an initiator, and an aggressor can only act for themselves (being human and thus solely responsible for their actions) while an aggressor should certainly be held responsible for their actions their culpabilityshouldnever be geographically contagious. Further more, any pretense of defending innocence by way of destroying it,is, we'll, absurd even psychopathic.  I killed that child because it may have grown into a killer itself... Absurd,kno whatim sayin.

I get the argument, but sailing away was the unacknowledged option c.

And what of honor? Is it a wonton figment? A thing that requires semantic acrobatics to justifye? Nah, honor is evident and there is no honor in an innocent corpse.

----------


## Ender

For those that think the Japanese deserved what they got, here is an interesting article about the US provocation of Pearl Harbor:




> The Secret History of WWII
> 
> By Patrick J. Buchanan
> 
> On Dec. 8, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt took the rostrum before a joint session of Congress to ask for a declaration of war on Japan.
> 
> A day earlier, at dawn, carrier-based Japanese aircraft had launched a sneak attack devastating the U.S. battle fleet at Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Said ex-President Herbert Hoover, Republican statesman of the day, We have only one job to do now, and that is to defeat Japan.
> ...


And, no there is NEVER justification for the wholesale slaughtering of innocent people.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> An aggressor? Yes, let us take that route. An aggressor, is by dur duh definition an initiator, and an aggressor can only act for themselves (being human and thus solely responsible for their actions) while an aggressor should certainly be held responsible for their actions their culpabilityshouldnever be geographically contagious. Further more, any pretense of defending innocence by way of destroying it,is, we'll, absurd even psychopathic.  I killed that child because it may have grown into a killer itself... Absurd,kno whatim sayin.
> 
> I get the argument, but sailing away was the unacknowledged option c.
> 
> And what of honor? Is it a wonton figment? A thing that requires semantic acrobatics to justifye? Nah, honor is evident and there is no honor in an innocent corpse.


I think you misunderstood my question. This aggressor has positioned his command and control centers amidst "innocent civilians". He knows you think this is dishonorable, but he doesn't mind what you think.

Option A: You can stop him, but only if you're willing to kill the "innocent civilians" shielding him. Option B: You can stand down and let the aggressor kill every child in the world, but at least you didn't kill any yourself. There's no Option C. If you choose Option B, please explain to every child why you stood down while the aggressor killed him.

----------


## Ender

> I think you misunderstood my question. This aggressor has positioned his command and control centers amidst "innocent civilians". He knows you think this is dishonorable, but he doesn't mind what you think.
> 
> Option A: You can stop him, but only if you're willing to kill the "innocent civilians" shielding him. Option B: You can stand down and let the aggressor kill every child in the world, but at least you didn't kill any yourself. There's no Option C. If you choose Option B, please explain to every child why you stood down while the aggressor killed him.


Sniper, dude.

Solves the problem immediately.

----------


## bolil

> I think you misunderstood my question. This aggressor has positioned his command and control centers amidst "innocent civilians". He knows you think this is dishonorable, but he doesn't mind what you think.
> 
> Option A: You can stop him, but only if you're willing to kill the "innocent civilians" shielding him. Option B: You can stand down and let the aggressor kill every child in the world, but at least you didn't kill any yourself. There's no Option C. If you choose Option B, please explain to every child why you stood down while the aggressor killed him.


Ohhh, that.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% perspective same frame of mind that has brought us to this precipice. Yes, there is evil in this world and fire does not fight itself. A ridiculous hypothetical that infects many a brain, do you see Arabs 'neath your bed and pretend that you are still sane? If you can justify murdering a child then I guess they were not exaggerating when they called the west wild. $#@! that, but not you.

----------


## bolil

Somewhere over there was borne a life, an inheritor of the world and all of this strife. The further along put restrictions on beginners and then they have the nerve to call us al sinners. Tell you what, if you choose to comprehend, in the the abyss we all meet a lonely end, friend, will you stand before a magnificence and justify the murder of a child, a man, a woman and then lie. Tell that void all about you reasons and your cause dissemble to a presence that cares not for your laws. Too sleep, perchance, to dream.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Ohhh, that.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% perspective same frame of mind that has brought us to this precipice. Yes, there is evil in this world and fire does not fight itself. A ridiculous hypothetical that infects many a brain, do you see Arabs 'neath your bed and pretend that you are still sane? If you can justify murdering a child then I guess they were not exaggerating when they called the west wild. $#@! that, but not you.


This seriously is your explanation to the children you would allow to be murdered?

The only one talking about Arabs is you.

Keep telling yourself there's no real possibility anyone would ever utilize a human shield. Also, tell yourself there could be no contagious plague requiring drastic measures for containment.

Why do you fund the murder of "innocent civilians" with your taxes? Why do you empower the murderers? How will you justify that when you "stand before a magnificence"?

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

*Nagasaki Survivors, 68 Years On*http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/newsl...308091913.html

----------


## bolil

> This is your explanation to the children you would allow to be murdered?
> 
> The only one talking about Arabs is you.
> 
> Keep telling yourself there's no real possibility anyone would ever utilize a human shield.
> 
> Why do you fund the murder of "innocent civilians" with your taxes? Why do you empower the murderers?


And your answer is? Lets $#@!ing kill em all and for sure get some kids. Because we can construct a shallow hypothetical in which that bad guy can get his. Ours, my child isn't yours and i reject outright any claim you make to her. You say I speak first of the Arab but its your kind that would see them follow Ahab. Can you follow, if not understand, that no matter the eye shape a man is a man? Funny, Nay, pathetic in a word your meager minded assumptions of man you've never heard.

I empower them with, sure, with an overwhelming sense of guilt. A thing I take as a man. I do not seek to hide my guilt like you, apparently, do.

Yup, gotta kill kids to protect kids... Are you out of your $#@!ing mind!? Super villain bull$#@!, lol. Due you heard about neglitron of the saturnalian people, he wants to kill everyone so lets blow that planet up. Before we do, let's send some brave men to do killing we don't have the stomach for.  I'm with you in sending them. Smfh whilst spitting. Take your hypothetical and stick it. Once you've got it nice and firm remind me how, exactly, slaughtering innocent people is ever necessary, to say nothing of ethics, in saving innocent people.

A thought snack for you: the us coulda have killed a bunch of Germans by bombing aushwitz... Right, human shield argument and all... You didn't walk into it, you ran.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed
> 
> 
> Why do you fund the murder of "innocent civilians" with your taxes? Why do you empower the murderers? How will you justify that when you "stand before a magnificence"?
> 
> 
> I empower them with, sure, with an overwhelming sense of guilt. A thing I take as a man. I do not seek to hide my guilt like you, apparently, do.


And your answer is: "Lets $#@!ing kill em all and for sure get some kids."




> Ours, my child isn't yours and i reject outright any claim you make to her.


And I reject outright any claim you make to the children whose murder you are funding.




> I empower them with, sure, with an overwhelming sense of guilt. A thing I take as a man. I do not seek to hide my guilt


So you when you enable the murder of children, what's important is that you feel guilt, and that's good enough for you and the "magnificence", so you don't bother to actually stop funding the murder. How honorable.

----------


## bolil

> And your answer is: "Lets $#@!ing kill em all and for sure get some kids. Can you follow, if not understand, that no matter the eye shape a man is a man? Funny, Nay, pathetic in a word."
> 
> 
> 
> And I reject outright any claim you make to the children whose murder you are funding.
> 
> 
> 
> So you when you enable the murder of children, what's important is that you feel guilt, and that's good enough for you and the "magnificence", so you don't bother to actually stop funding the murder. How honorable.


Haha, even dull steel can be given and edge. Doesn't hold, though, not for long. Break it down, fed, how nuking a city is ever justified. Blah, blah, blah. Spent too much time in that textbook, didn't you. Nuking is good and okay because my teacher told me so...

I fund it, on threat of death. You defend it on some egotistical notion that... They have it coming? boyo, do you spring quarter chub at each casualty report? You defend it? Well, enlist and become what you espouse of shut the $#@! up.

Sine you seem fond of hypotheticals, every innocent is hypothetically a future murderer. Lets just kill every one, just to be safe.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Break it down, fed, how nuking a city is ever justified.


It is justified as long as the murderers type:




> sure, with an overwhelming sense of guilt. A thing I take as a man. I do not seek to hide my guilt."


The "magnificence" made it that easy to get away with murder.




> Spent too much time in that textbook, didn't you.


Just the textbook you wrote about how your guilt justifies your ongoing support for murdering other people's children.

----------


## bolil

Dupe,pun

----------


## bolil

Dupe dupe

----------


## bolil

Dupe dupe dupe elfin tablet

----------


## bolil

Entering the domain of absurdity dupe dupe dupe

----------


## bolil

Left said domain, will avoid redundant dupes

----------


## bolil

> It is justified as long as the murderers type:
> 
> 
> 
> The "magnificence" made it that easy to get away with murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Just the textbook you wrote about how your guilt justifies your ongoing support for murdering other people's children.


Found the low ground wanting, did you? That's fine, despite your dissembling I welcome your reformation.  Now say it, "random killing is never justified."

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I fund it, on threat of death.


So you are willing to murder children in order to postpone your own death. "Magnificence" is going to love that.

----------


## bolil

> So you are willing to murder children in order to postpone your own death. "Magnificence" is going to love that.


Probably not, but certainly more than some enabling dissembling Sally. I will ask for forgiveness while your kind will plead ignorance. Most likely, we will meet in hell which will suit you fine, what being okay with mass murder and all.

Better dead than fed, not $#@! never thought to take your handle literally. You know, some of us actually consider life a gift - but to each her or his own and your case "it's."

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Most likely, we will meet in hell


Since you're admittedly probably going to hell, so much for your "innocent" civilian status on Earth.

----------


## bolil

> Since you're admittedly probably going to hell, so much for your "innocent" civilian status on Earth.


Can you not help but assume? Me,innocent, no. Child, innocent, yes. Nuke discriminate... No. That is but a technicality to the bloodthirsty sort. Your ideological brethren that would see innocent people slain en masse just to get the one guilty individual. Rough rider you are. Go there and punish those uppity kids, go get some.  Otherwise, hold your fingers. Seriously, you would rain hell fire from the skies but lack the testicles to deliver such in person.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> You know, some of us actually consider life a gift


How does this tie in with your funding the murder of children in order to postpone your own death? Your life is the dead children's gift to you? Did you explain that to them? What did they think about that?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Nuke discriminate... No.


Neither are plagues. Besides jabbering, what are you going to do if one requires drastic containment measures?

----------


## bolil

> How does this tie in with your funding the murder of children in order to postpone your own death? Your life is the dead children's gift to you? Did you explain that to them? What did they think about that?


Boy asks questions. Postpone my own death, is that a threat? Buddy boy I'd really like to meet you. For a Sally filled with curiosity you are quite adverse to answering questions.

----------


## bolil

> Neither are plagues. Besides jabbering, what are you going to do if one requires drastic containment measures?


Hahaaaa an authentic plague isn't launched by man, you must be a phallice making conversation out of fallacy. I guess I'll take your cue and cower neath the mantle of government. Awwwww, cannot be spontaneous, fireball?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Postpone my own death, is that a threat?


No it's not. It was a reference to your earlier statement, from several minutes ago. I'll show you if you ever sober up. Do you ever sober up?

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> Me,innocent, no.


Have you positioned yourself near any innocents? If so, then what is "hypothetical" about an aggressor evil enough to shield himself amidst innocents?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If there is an afterlife, and you answer Yes to the question "Did you fund the killing of innocent civilians", they might just cut the interview short and send you on your way?


I don't fund the killing of innocent civilians.  I'm robbed.  

Someone sticks a gun in your face, takes your money, then does evil things with it, and you're telling me you're responsible for those evil things?

----------


## Contumacious

> Without reading much of the past 27 pages of replies, my answer is yes.
> 
> If a gunman takes a hostage as a human shield and starts shooting you, you have the right to shoot back no matter if the hostage dies or not. The hostage's death is not on you - it is on the gunman.
> 
> .


I see , so AQ, or any other entity or individual who wants to retaliate against the US Government , its well within their rights to drop a dirty bomb in any US City, hijack airplanes and kamikaze against buildings , blow up an aircraft or ship, etc. Right?

.

----------


## Philhelm

Question:  Could an EMP device be considered a WMD?

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Question:  Could an EMP device be considered a WMD?


I think so, because it can indirectly damage or destroy things that need to be powered constantly or rely on something else that needs to be powered constantly, and kill people (for instance people who have pacemakers & people on life support).

----------


## willwash

> I think so, because it can indirectly damage or destroy things that need to be powered constantly or rely on something else that needs to be powered constantly, and kill people (for instance people who have pacemakers & people on life support).


As well as shut down a lot of sensitive equipment at hospitals

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> I'm robbed.  
> 
> If someone sticks a gun in your face, takes your money, then does evil things with it, and you're telling me you're responsible for those evil things?


If a robber sticks a gun in your face, and you know the robber is going to use your money to kill innocent civilians, you have options: You can resist, or you can hand your money over to him. Why not resist? The robber might kill you, but how could God hold that against you?

If an aggressor sticks a gun in your face and orders you to drop WMD's on innocent civilians, what will you do?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If a robber sticks a gun in your face, and you know the robber is going to use your money to kill innocent civilians, you have options: You can resist, or you can hand your money over to him. Why not resist? The robber might kill you, but how could God hold that against you?
> 
> If an aggressor sticks a gun in your face and orders you to drop WMD's on innocent civilians, what will you do?


First, technically speaking there is no way I can know what the thieving US government is going to do with the money they steal from me, just as I could not know what a common thief might do with the money he steals from me in a sidewalk stick-up.  Also, the "taxes" I surrender each year probably wouldn't by a set of tires on a Humvee.  What you suggest against an aggressor like the US government is a suicide mission.

Second, being ordered to engage a weapon against innocent people is obviously a far different thing than being robbed.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> What you suggest against an aggressor like the US government is a suicide mission.


You assume that God punishes people for refusing to pay taxes? Where did you get the idea that God does this?




> the "taxes" I surrender each year probably wouldn't by a set of tires on a Humvee.


And the number of pennies matters to God? Where did you get the idea this matters to Him?




> I'm robbed.  
> 
> If someone sticks a gun in your face, takes your money, then does evil things with it, and you're telling me you're responsible for those evil things?


If a robber sticks a gun in your face, and you technically do not know what the robber is going to use your money for, you have options: You can resist, or you can hand your money over to him. Why not resist? The robber might kill you, but how could God hold that against you?




> being ordered to engage a weapon against innocent people is obviously a far different thing than being robbed.


And refusing the order would be "suicide", and God would punish you for the "suicide", so you would comply with the order?

----------


## DamianTV

> First, technically speaking there is no way I can know what the thieving US government is going to do with the money they steal from me, just as I could not know what a common thief might do with the money he steals from me in a sidewalk stick-up.  Also, the "taxes" I surrender each year probably wouldn't by a set of tires on a Humvee.  What you suggest against an aggressor like the US government is a suicide mission.
> 
> Second, being ordered to engage a weapon against innocent people is obviously a far different thing than being robbed.


Taking on the US Military truly is a Suicide Mission.  There are other ways to take down a country.  One of those ways is to just allow a country to BANKRUPT itself by printing money into Oblivion.  Russia in Afghanistan for example.  Military War is not the only way to wage war on a country.  Other types of War can cause the deaths of many as well.  For example: Starvation being a (disputable) indirect effect of Financial War.

(Im not validating or disputing murder of innocents, just saying Military War is not the only type of War)

----------


## Tod

A government only gains its power from the consent of the governed.  At some level, we as civilians are guilty of the crimes of our government.  If we all refused to allow our government to commit aggression in our name, we could stop it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *A government only gains its power from the consent of the governed.*  At some level, we as civilians are guilty of the crimes of our government.  If we all refused to allow our government to commit aggression in our name, we could stop it.


A very popular myth.  The fact is that governments everywhere throughout history act without consent of the governed as a matter of course.  What you are doing here is blaming the victims.

Unless you want to argue that voting=consent..Then you might have a better case.  But then you could still only discuss voters.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> As well as shut down a lot of sensitive equipment at hospitals


I work at a hospital in an IT department and I'm everywhere - yes, a hospital is as dead as a rock without without all that electronic equipment up and running.  Even xray images are stored and viewed electronically.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> You assume that God punishes people for refusing to pay taxes? Where did you get the idea that God does this?
> 
> 
> 
> And the number of pennies matters to God? Where did you get the idea this matters to Him?
> 
> 
> 
> If a robber sticks a gun in your face, and you technically do not know what the robber is going to use your money for, you have options: You can resist, or you can hand your money over to him. Why not resist? The robber might kill you, but how could God hold that against you?
> ...


Do you pay taxes to the US govt?

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Originally Posted by Tod
> 
> 
> A government only gains its power from the consent of the governed.  At some level, we as civilians are guilty of the crimes of our government.  If we all refused to allow our government to commit aggression in our name, we could stop it.
> 
> 
> A very popular myth.  The fact is that governments everywhere throughout history act without consent of the governed as a matter of course.  What you are doing here is blaming the victims.


Another way it can be seen as a myth is that governments actually gain their power with the tools of force, such as guns & WMDs, which is the true reason the authoritarian types actually want to disarm people; that way only a tiny group of people hold and control power, and the rest of the people don't.  This is exactly why people should never ever tolerate a government that tries to grab any guns.  Even bans on owning or possessing WMDs are actually unconstitutional if you take into account how the 2nd amendment is actually written.




> Unless you want to argue that voting=consent..Then you might have a better case.  But then you could still only discuss voters.


Is a person who chooses not to vote still a voter?  Their "vote" was not to vote at all.  Regardless, it's the public servant who was elected who makes decisions such as to drop (or not drop) a WMD on civilians, not the people who voted for the public servant.  The public servant could've been corrupted, broken a promise, or gone insane; that doesn't make the civilians liable.

The problem is that some leader of another country with the capability of dropping WMDs might not see it that way; this is also why it's necessary that the people never allow their government to disarm them, in case it's necessary for the people to use their weapons to remove a politician who was corrupted, broke a promise, or went insane and dropped WMDs on that other country.  We thus have an obligation not to allow the government to disarm people.  Law enforcement agents, whether a sheriff, federal agent, or rookie cop, and every person of every rank in the military also have an obligation to see to it that they also never allow the government to disarm the people for that very reason.

Anyways, the bottom line is that it's still never justified to drop WMDs on cities with civilian populated buildings.  It seems to me that only a corrupt leader who has no respect for innocent lives would do such a thing.

----------


## TheTexan

> I don't fund the killing of innocent civilians.  I'm robbed.  
> 
> Someone sticks a gun in your face, takes your money, then does evil things with it, and you're telling me you're responsible for those evil things?


To some degree, yes.  Unless you are resisting (and let's be honest, noone here is resisting), you are effectively letting it happen.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I didn't read the entire thread, and it seems to me that it went off on a tangent at some point.  I want to boot this back up:

Anyone who says "yes" to this is not only not a libertarian, they aren't much of a Christian either.  I know some here who voted "yes" would claim to be Christians, and others would not.

I believe libertarian theory is Biblical, but I understand that some aspects of it are just complicated and the average person isn't really going to consider them.  My mom wasn't able to understand with a short amount of explanation how speed limits laws are inherently violent.  OK.  Some people don't realize that the US soldiers aren't actually fighting people who are threatening our freedoms, so they've been brainwashed into thinking that "our troops" are protecting our freedoms.  OK.  Some people don't realize that drug laws are actually nonsensical (Not to mention nowhere Biblically supported) and they buy into senseless sensationalism that everyone who uses drugs is also a rapist or a killer.  Alright.  Maybe someone is even duped into thinking that since Jesus was a peaceful guy, he wouldn't approve of gun ownership.  Of course, on all these issues, and so many others, the libertarian positions are correct.  But I can at least see how a first glance view at Biblical texts would not immediately lead one to the correct answers on these questions.

But bombing a city and murdering civilians solely to try to scare a foreign government to surrender?  Seriously?

"Thou shall not murder" ring a bell? 

I don't see how people could miss this one.

I guess worship of government has gone so far that virtually everything they do is considered justified by most people, or at the very least, the criticisms are watered down.  They don't even take the concept that government officials are still human beings that are bound by the same moral laws as we are far enough to condemn obvious, deliberate murder of civilians.

I find it sickening, and this is why, despite being an evangelical Christian, I find myself disconnected from most other evangelical Christians.  I am sickened by those who can't even grasp this very simple concept.  I don't know why they fail, but its not a lack of intelligence or dilligence, like it might be with some other issues.  This is very black and white.

----------


## mrsat_98

And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall mourn her, and lament for her, when they shall *see the smoke of her burning*,Revelation 18:9

Yes, Nuff said.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

*APOCALYPSE*

08.14.15 
*U.S. Planned to Drop 12 Atomic Bombs on Japan*
A week after Nagasaki, Tokyo had still not surrendered. A third weapon was already on its way and a dozen were to follow.
LONDON  — American military archives reveal that if the Japanese had not  surrendered on August 15, 1945, they would have been hit by a third and  potentially more powerful atomic bomb just a few days later and then,  eventually, an additional barrage of up to 12 further nuclear attacks.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-on-japan.html





                                                                                          Op-Ed                        *
What U.S. citizens weren't told about the atomic bombing of Japan*

                      People  are seen visiting the Atomic Bomb Dome at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial  Park in Hiroshima, Japan on Aug. 5. Japan is preparing to mark the 70th  anniversary of the first atomic bomb that was dropped on the nation, on  Aug. 6, 1945.
 By Susan Southard          
                                        August 7, 2015

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Seventy  years ago, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan:  Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945; Nagasaki on Aug. 9. With searing heat and  annihilating force, the nuclear blasts tore through factories, shops and  homes in both cities. Huge portions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki vanished.  Weighing many factors, including the Soviet Union's entry into the war  against Japan 11 hours before the Nagasaki bombing, Japan surrendered.  By Aug. 15, World War II was over.

In  the United States, the necessity of the bombings to end the war has  been studied and argued for decades, but the acute and long-term effects  of whole-body radiation exposure on the men, women and children beneath  the mushroom clouds are little known and seldom mentioned. Without also  accounting for this critical aspect of the bombings, discussions of the  military, moral and existential issues surrounding Hiroshima and  Nagasaki are incomplete. If we choose to take and defend actions that  cause great harm to civilians during war, we must also scrutinize and  wholly understand the effect of those actions.
Within  a week of each nuclear attack, thousands who had escaped death began to  experience inexplicable combinations of symptoms: high fever,  dizziness, nausea, headaches, diarrhea, bloody stools, nosebleeds and  whole-body weakness. Their hair fell out in large clumps, their wounds  secreted extreme amounts of pus, and their gums swelled and bled. Purple  spots appeared on their bodies, signs of hemorrhaging beneath the skin.  Infections ravaged their internal organs. Within a few days of the  onset of symptoms, many people lost consciousness, mumbled deliriously  and died in extreme pain; others languished for weeks before either  dying or slowly recovering. Even those who had suffered no external  injuries fell sick and died. In the ruins of his small tuberculosis  hospital in Nagasaki, Dr. Tatsuichiro Akizuki likened the situation to  the Black Death pandemic that ravaged Europe in the 1300s.
A  second wave of radiation illnesses and deaths swept through Nagasaki in  late August through early October. From Akizuki's perspective on top of  Motohara Hill, the illness carved a clear geographical path: From the  bottom of the hill upward, people died in order of their distance from  the bomb's hypocenter. Akizuki called this phenomenon the "concentric  circles of death."

    [Gen.  Leslie] Groves testified before the U.S. Senate that death from  high-dose radiation exposure is "without undue suffering" and "a very  pleasant way to die."      -          

Today,  Americans' silence on this crucial chapter of the atomic bomb story is,  in large part, an extension of U.S. denial and suppression since the  end of the war. Immediately after the bombings, high-level U.S.  officials publicly — and adamantly — rebuffed news reports about the  bombs' horrific aftereffects. Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the  Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bombs, dismissed these  reports as propaganda, even as he sent teams to measure radiation levels  to ensure the safety of U.S. troops about to enter both cities. Later  that year, Groves testified before the U.S. Senate that death from  high-dose radiation exposure is "without undue suffering" and "a very  pleasant way to die."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...806-story.html






> I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans.  Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately.  If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.


Hypothetically, let's assume US attacks a country in mideast based on lies (let's say its name is Iraq) and war drags on for more than 5-10 years causing deaths/sever injuries on both sides. Let's assume Iraqis  somehow obtain sufficient number of nuclear weapons and means to use them against the US. Would you defend their actions in such a scenario if Iraqis used multiple nuclear weapons in populated US cities if that leads to US decision to end the war (in  our hypothetical country called Iraq)?

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

Yes, deadly nano virus. Alien invasion. There's all kinds of reasons. If you can't think a reason, you just aren't imaginative enough.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Back during the Cold War, Randy Newman suggested nuking everybody.

----------


## muh_roads

> I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans.  Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately.  If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.


Couldn't we have just dropped a bomb in the ocean to scare them and said "watch this"?

----------


## Dianne

> It's better for a hundred bad guys to go free than for one innocent person to be killed needlessly, IMO.


Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwe.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

I don't think this is ever going to happen now because of anti-icbm technology

----------


## Zippyjuan

If nuclear weapons are used again, it likely won't be ICBMs.  It will be delivered by submarines or more likely airplanes. Less warning time and harder to defend. Anti- missile defenses have improved but still have a long ways to go. Studies on Patriot Missile success in the Gulf War later reveled that they had a terrible record against Scuds despite claims. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/17/wo...tists-say.html With ICBMs you know where they may come from and can try to target appropriately but with jets, you never know where they may come from.  They can come in below radar coverage or launch from high above.  Meanwhile nuke weapons have gotten smaller and better designed. 

Our latest weapon?  The B62- 12.  https://www.revealnews.org/article/n...educe-arsenal/






> ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Standing next to a 12-foot nuclear bomb that looks more like a trim missile than a weapon of mass destruction, engineer Phil Hoover exudes pride. “I feel a real sense of accomplishment,” he said.
> 
> But as Hoover knows, looks can be deceiving. He and fellow engineers at Sandia National Laboratories have spent the past few years designing, building and testing the top-secret electronic and mechanical innards of the sophisticated B61-12.
> 
> Later, when nuclear explosives are added at the federal Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, the bomb will have a maximum explosive force equivalent to 50,000 tons of TNT – more than three times more powerful than the U.S. atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, 70 years ago this August that killed more than 130,000 people.
> 
> The U.S. government doesn’t consider the B61-12 to be new – simply an upgrade of an existing weapon. But some contend that it is far more than that.
> 
> Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the nonpartisan Federation of American Scientists in Washington, is resolute that the bomb violates a 2010 Obama administration pledge not to produce nuclear weapons with new military capabilities.
> ...


More at link. 

"Dial a yield" is just that- an adjustment you can make directly on the missile to change the yield which makes it "more usable in more situations". It can be changed from as high as 50,000 tons of TNT yield down to 300 tons- which is 98% lower yield than the Hiroshima bomb.  You no longer need to change out the warhead or have multiple warheads available if you decide you need a different yield.  It is designed for use with the new F35 Stealth Fighter-Bomber.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

It's hard to believe that little bomb can be hiroshima x 3

----------


## UWDude

> Hypothetically, let's assume US attacks a country in mideast based on lies (let's say its name is Iraq) and war drags on for more than 5-10 years causing deaths/sever injuries on both sides. Let's assume Iraqis  somehow obtain sufficient number of nuclear weapons and means to use them against the US. Would you defend their actions in such a scenario if Iraqis used multiple nuclear weapons in populated US cities if that leads to US decision to end the war (in  our hypothetical country called Iraq)?


Hypothetically, would saying yes mean I get carted away to Guantanamo for aiding terrorists?  Because if so, I can't honestly answer that question.  Big brother is watching.

$#@! it.

America deserves every last nightmare coming to it. Including the mushroom clouds that will inevitably rise over its cities.

War has consequences.  And you cant win 'em all.  And eventually when you do, then you will learn the true meaning of "laws of war", or should I say, the one and only law of war:

Anything you do winning, will be exacted upon you ten times stronger when you lose.  By the end, America will be judged by history as the evil empire.  Worldwide, children's history books will chide America as if it were worse than Hitler.  It will be a smoking ruin of endless sectarian warfare between a people with no culture, no brains, and a lot of guns, ambition, and greed.

The nations that have advanced and moved on will marvel how a once great nation is now a cesspit of war, hatred, strife, violence and poverty.  They will consider it a dangerous place to travel, and constantly ask themselves, "Why are Americans so violent?"  Lots of pseudo-intellectuals will pontificate all sorts of reasons, from video games to genetics.

Truth of the matter will be, America will go insane with greed, power, and hatred.  The mass shootings are just the beginning, and they are happening in a time of plenty.  One or two nuked American cities, and the American economy will flare out like the paper empire that it is.  then resources will get scarce.  Then poverty will set in.  Then the street survivors will survive, and the suburbanites will hate them.  Then the world will get crazy, and America will fracture into a hundred different cultures, all with complex ties that nobody could really understand or comprehend, and those cultures also being manipulated by outside governments and forces.  America is already a shattered nation, with nothing binding its people together, not even family exists here anymore.  Family existed for tens of thousands of years.

The reason I feel so strongly about the justification of nuclear weapons, is sometimes a rabid dog has to be put down.  In WW II, it was Germany and Japan.  In World War III, its gonna be.....


..and in the end, humanity will ask itself why did it bring itself to the brink of destruction.  The tragedy of man is they only act in times of crisis.  Otherwise, they are fat, happy, and content.  Humanity will come out better than before, like it always does... ...but first, there is gonna have to be some pain.  And the pain will come. 

Is it justifiable to drop nukes on cities?  That's like asking is it justifiable for one soldier to shoot another in war.  Since when did justice or morality have anything to do with reality?

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

Well, the truth is America was never that much of a shining beacon of freedom to begin with. It wasn't that long ago women still couldn't vote and black people had to drink from a separate water fountain. Then before that, slavery, killing the Native Americans, etc. Our country did the same thing to the Native Americans that the Nazis did to the Jews, except our country was more successful. You can find Jews all over the place. I don't recall ever meeting a Native American. The Jews refused to leave Germany, so they were killed. The Native Americans refused to leave their lands so they were killed. The colonies did to the Native Americans what the Nazis dreamed of doing to Russia.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans.  Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately.  If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.


But a lot of writing and documentaries show the Japanese knew they were finished anyway.

----------


## paleocon1

> No. The attacking of civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc were some of the worst war crimes in all of human history.


Those 'innocent' civilians armed, supplied, encouraged their aggressive national governments and militaries.

----------


## paleocon1

Neither Japan nor Germany suffered anything which they were not utterly willing to inflict on others.

----------


## Demigod

...

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> Those 'innocent' civilians armed, supplied, encouraged their aggressive national governments and militaries.


I think the point of people criticizing the atom bombs is that it was excessive force, since we would have won the war anyway, so at that point it was just revenge killing

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If nuclear weapons are used again, it likely won't be ICBMs.  It will be delivered by submarines or more likely airplanes. Less warning time and harder to defend. Anti- missile defenses have improved but still have a long ways to go. Studies on Patriot Missile success in the Gulf War later reveled that they had a terrible record against Scuds despite claims. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/17/wo...tists-say.html With ICBMs you know where they may come from and can try to target appropriately but with jets, you never know where they may come from.  They can come in below radar coverage or launch from high above.  Meanwhile nuke weapons have gotten smaller and better designed. 
> 
> Our latest weapon?  The B62- 12.  https://www.revealnews.org/article/n...educe-arsenal/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at link. 
> ...


If that bomb is 12' long, does that make that man 10' tall?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> If that bomb is 12' long, does that make that man 10' tall?


That may have been a scale test model.  From the photo caption: 




> Phil Hoover, an engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, *shows off a flight test body* for a B61-12 nuclear weapon. Sandia engineers have spent the past few years designing, building and testing the top-secret electronic and mechanical innards of the bomb.


Would make sense if it was a 50% scale test model.  The article refers to him "standing" next to a 12" missile- in the photo, he is not standing but is crouched so it seems to refer to a different missile. 

Here is a B61 being worked on- the missile the B62- 12 is said to be an "upgrade" of.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

----------


## idiom

> Are you defending yourself against aggression? Are the people who are for some reason labeled "civilians" responsible for the aggression? Did the "civilians" elect aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" voluntarily act as informants in support of the aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" provide financial support to the aggressive leaders? Do they pay taxes? If the answers are "yes", then what makes the "civilians" "innocent"? Would dropping the WMD's deter future aggression?


Sounds like you are justifying 9/11

----------


## Danke

> It's hard to believe that little bomb can be hiroshima x 3


The Mod7 version goes up to 340 kilotons

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"The last move in politics is always to pick up the gun." -- R. Buckminster Fuller*

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Neither Japan nor Germany suffered anything which they were not utterly willing to inflict on others.


There's no such thing as "Japan" nor "Germany", so this ambiguous "they" to which you refer is entirely a figment of your imagination.  

You've imagined that the mindless, faceless blob those names refer to actually represent some kind of anthropomorphized, unified will; which of course they do not.  The people whom you casually lump together into said blobs actually were indeed individual human beings with individual hopes, dreams, ambitions, fears and sins of their very own.  Many of those people were of course guilty of the same error, which is what allowed those individuals to participate in things which normal, healthy, rational human beings would on their own find utterly abhorrent... a fact which you should find troubling for your own moral framework, given - again - that you're guilty of the same error.  

Until people shed such irrational views, krauts and nips will rise again to wage war on the kikes and gooks, and the beneficiaries of "American exceptionalism" will feel entitled to wage war on the rest of the planet.  

There is no "we", or "them".

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by eduardo89
> 
> 
> No. The attacking of civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc were some of the worst war crimes in all of human history.
> 
> 
> Those 'innocent' civilians armed, supplied, encouraged their aggressive national governments and militaries.


Well, I sure am glad that American civilians would never, ever do such things!

I mean, can you imagine what horrible things might happen if they did?

Oh, wait ...



So I guess those ^^^^^^ "innocent" civilians got exactly what they had coming to them, too - amirite?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Those 'innocent' civilians armed, supplied, encouraged their aggressive national governments and militaries.





> Neither Japan nor Germany suffered anything which they were not utterly willing to inflict on others.


Kids sign their names on missiles (Israel). Prisoners build components of missiles (USA). Tax slaves, who morally object to the using of their funds to indiscriminately bomb, poison, shoot, maim, abort [etc. etc. etc.] anyone, pay taxes.

But even ignoring all that, how many children died? Babies? (and FWIW, Iraq is poisoned for billions of years, babies in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Colombia [etc. etc. etc.] are seeing the same thing, though perhaps not as ridiculously long as Iraq will be seeing it, i.e. eternity) 

Japan would have surrendered regardless. FDR goaded them into attacking Pearl Harbor in the first place.

They talk bad about Axis inflicted fatalities but then side with the Soviet Union.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

*Why is a MOAB not a WMD?*

----------


## osan

Is murdering those who have done you no harm ever justified?

----------


## osan

> Those 'innocent' civilians armed, supplied, encouraged their aggressive national governments and militaries.



All of them?

----------


## paleocon1

> All of them?


Yes

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, I sure am glad that American civilians would never, ever do such things!
> 
> I mean, can you imagine what horrible things might happen if they did?
> 
> Oh, wait ...
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess those ^^^^^^ "innocent" civilians got exactly what they had coming to them, too - amirite?


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again._

----------


## osan

> Yes


How do you reason?  Your statement directly implies infants deserved to me murdered.  How about retards?  Are they deserving?  Senile elderly?  People who disagree with what an insane mob has chosen to undertake; a mob who will as soon murder YOU for so much as objecting?  

Unless you have something else that's truly killer, I'd say your position is pretty well a train wreck, I am sorry to say.

----------


## Ender

> Quote Originally *Posted by paleocon*1 View Post
> Neither Japan nor Germany suffered anything which they were not utterly willing to inflict on others.


Hate to tell you but the US & the Brits were responsible for WWII.

----------


## osan

> Hate to tell you but the US & the Brits were responsible for WWII.


And the Poles.  They were major muck rakers.

----------


## paleocon1

> Hate to tell you but the US & the Brits were responsible for WWII.


Which does not alter that Neither Japan nor Germany suffered anything which they were not utterly willing to inflict on others.

----------


## wizardwatson

..

----------


## jllundqu

Dropping two bombs on two civilian cities was a horrible crime against humanity.


Maybe only Hiroshima was justified.....     /sarc

----------


## UWDude

> Hate to tell you but the US & the Brits were responsible for WWII.


what B.S.  
You can't stop war by re-writing history to make it appear war was avoidable.
War is a necessary function of the human race.  It is ingrained in us.  it will never go away.  (see 2nd amendment).
As long as there are divorces, there will surely be wars.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

Once there is a clear declaration of war, any and all tactics should be on the table. Clucking about morality in warfare is only done by unserious people who aren't prepared to do what it takes to win.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Once there is a clear declaration of war, any and all tactics should be on the table. Clucking about morality in warfare is only done by unserious people who aren't prepared to do what it takes to win.


If you act like an evil $#@! in war, who will follow you?  Just other evil $#@!s.

----------


## AZJoe

> Once there is a clear declaration of war, any and all tactics should be on the table. Clucking about morality in warfare is only done by unserious people who aren't prepared to do what it takes to win.


This validates every terrorist act ever committed. YeeHaw Jihad! 9/11 justified. The next nuke detonated on an American city has just been validated by TPL. Throw all morality, ethics, law, virtue, "American" values out the window. Rape, genocide, torture, beheadings, nuclear annihilation, irradiate a population, burning people alive, poison gas, killing the children - the "beautiful babies," -  Its all simply validated tactics of "serious people prepared to do what it takes to win." Its all valid tactics so long as you make a clear declaration of war. Be the terrorist. Suicide bombers - sure. "Any and all tactics" justified. ISIS wants to nuke Tel Aviv - ThePaleoLibertarian says its validated tactics, just make your declaration of war clear. Al Qaeda/ISIS simply declares war on Washington - Ok to blow up the innocents; dirty bombs in the city; poison the water supply; steal children; burn the schools and hospitals with the people inside - its all good so long as you make a clear declaration. Who knew pure evil was so easily justified.

----------


## AZJoe

> Well, I sure am glad that American civilians would never, ever do such things!
> 
> I mean, can you imagine what horrible things might happen if they did?
> 
> Oh, wait ...
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess those ^^^^^^ "innocent" civilians got exactly what they had coming to them, too - amirite?


Obviously 9/11 was simply valid tactics of  "serious people doing what it takes to win". If only they had some nukes, then they could really implement some valid tactics on civilians, right?

----------


## jllundqu

> Once there is a clear declaration of war, any and all tactics should be on the table. Clucking about morality in warfare is only done by unserious people who aren't prepared to do what it takes to win.


Have you been in combat?

It absolutely matters HOW you win, not just IF you win.  Neocons like Cheney are famous for quoting things (paraphrasing) like "principles only matter if you win" and he's right, to an extent.  For WW2, we can jabber on about what WE would have done, but we weren't there.  There were things done to 'win' other than the shock and awe of the A-bomb that were unconscionable (Fire bombing of Tokyo, Dresden Raids, etc).  Targeting civilian populations as a means to an end is criminal of the highest order.  Legitimate targets and war tactics, as you say, ARE on the table.  Women and children are not.  Only tyrants and murderous kings have brought down the sword on the innocent.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Obviously 9/11 was simply valid tactics of  "serious people doing what it takes to win". If only they had some nukes, then they could really implement some valid tactics on civilians, right?


Well, they *would* have to issue a clear declaration or war fatwa calling for jihad first. Otherwise, they'd just be criminals.

I mean, there's gotta be *some* kinda rules, after all. (We just don't want to get carried away and be unserious cluckers about it ...)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Once there is a clear declaration of war, any and all tactics should be on the table.


Ethics should not be discarded with the outbreak of war, but they almost inevitably will be.

----------


## Ender

> Which does not alter that Neither Japan nor Germany suffered anything which they were not utterly willing to inflict on others.


And the US is different? Don't remember Japan or Germany dropping nukes on cities.

----------


## Ender

> what B.S.  
> You can't stop war by re-writing history to make it appear war was avoidable.
> War is a necessary function of the human race.  It is ingrained in us.  it will never go away.  (see 2nd amendment).
> As long as there are divorces, there will surely be wars.


Maybe you ought to learn a little real history instead of believing your public edumacation $#@!e.

----------


## UWDude

> Maybe you ought to learn a little real history instead of believing your public edumacation $#@!e.


I know both sides just fine, and I know a hell of a lot more than you, I assure you.  I was quite educated in history before I decided to make it my major.  In fact I only chose history because I knew I could sleepwalk through it, and I did.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

It's that historic day's anniversary  again when 'fire and fury' was unleashed on a city populated with many civilian buildings:


*On this day in 1945: The US detonated an atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Nagasaki*


   The bombs detonated over Nagasaki (right) and Hiroshima (left)  Credit: Wikimedia Commons    


  Dominic Selwood 

   9 August 2017  10:11am                                                                                                   
   At 11.02 a.m. on 9 August 1945, the US detonated a mustard yellow atomic weapon over the Japanese port city of Nagasaki.

   The five-ton bomb, named Fat Man, was dropped from _Bockscar_,  a Boeing B-29 Superfortress. US ground crews had scrawled personal  messages to Emperor Hirohito on the bomb casing, and there was one word  stencilled on its nose. JANCFU. It was a reference to a bodge job in  the final stages of assembling the bomb: Joint Army-Navy-Civilian $#@!  Up.
   When _Bockscar_ had taken off that morning from Tinian in the  North Pacific, its crew had intended to drop the atomic weapon on the  military arsenal at Kokura, which was a city built on a wide plain, and  therefore ideal for maximising the destructive impact of the bombs  extensive blast waves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...city-nagasaki/





Related

North Korea says considering strike on Guam after Trump warns of 'fire and fury'
Metro US Aug 8, 2017

----------


## jllundqu

What do you tell a Japan with two black eyes?

Nothing, you already told them twice!   

Too soon?

----------


## PierzStyx

> Are you defending yourself against aggression? Are the people who are for some reason labeled "civilians" responsible for the aggression? Did the "civilians" elect aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" voluntarily act as informants in support of the aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" provide financial support to the aggressive leaders? Do they pay taxes? If the answers are "yes", then what makes the "civilians" "innocent"? Would dropping the WMD's deter future aggression?


No one "pays" taxes. Taxes don't exist on a voluntary basis. If you want to eat and have a place to sleep you have to work. The government then takes what it wants. That is how taxes work. So when your choices are starve or face extortion, almost everyone will choose extortion. Its called survival.

Also, trying to pretend civilians isn't a proper term just makes you look moronic. You sound like a Progressive trying to blame the companies that make guns for the fact that some of their guns are used in school shootings. Are you a Democrat? Because that is the only way your Leftists collectivist drivel can be explained. Only a Leftist could justify punishing everyone for the actions of a specific group instead of just punishing that group or person. Especially when the people you're trying to justify punishing are almost entirely hostages themselves.

----------


## PierzStyx

> *"The last move in politics is always to pick up the gun." -- R. Buckminster Fuller*


*“First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire."-Roland Deschain*

----------


## PierzStyx

> If a robber sticks a gun in your face, and you know the robber is going to use your money to kill innocent civilians, you have options: You can resist, or you can hand your money over to him. Why not resist? The robber might kill you, but how could God hold that against you?
> 
> If an aggressor sticks a gun in your face and orders you to drop WMD's on innocent civilians, what will you do?


Why not resist? Because you alone have no chance of defeating  a million person gang armed to the teeth who will torture, rape, and murder you, your wife, and your children if you don't comply. Its the same reason your couch warrior arse is sitting at home instead of invading DC right this moment.

If you're being ordered to operate WMDs then you're a soldier, not a civilian. Thus that argument has no bearing on justifying the murder of civilians.

----------


## PierzStyx

Also, screw all 33 of you who thought burning children alive in atomic weapons fire is ever a good idea. Just really, $#@! you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And the US is different? Don't remember Japan or Germany dropping nukes on cities.


That reminds me-Murica firebombed the $#@! out of Dresden.(also a civilian center) too. :'(

----------


## Lamp

> Also, screw all 33 of you who thought burning children alive in atomic weapons fire is ever a good idea. Just really, $#@! you.


I'm sure most of them just voted that way to give the impression that their edgy.

----------


## PierzStyx

> And the US is different? Don't remember Japan or Germany dropping nukes on cities.


In fact most people don't seem to understand that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they went out of their way to NOT bomb and kill American civilians. Just look at the map!



Pearl City is RIGHT THERE! The only way you couldn't hit it is if you were trying not to do so.

Which is not to say the Japanese didn't attack civilians. They did. Horrifically so in China. But they never attacked American civilians.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In fact most people don't seem to understand that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they went out of their way to NOT bomb and kill American civilians. Just look at the map!
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl City is RIGHT THERE! The only way you couldn't hit it is if you were trying not to do so.
> 
> Which is not to say the Japanese didn't attack civilians. They did. Horrifically so in China. But they never attacked American civilians.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PierzStyx again.

----------


## Ender

> 


Covered.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

*Americans largely support using nukes, even against civilians*



Thermonuclear test, 1952. (National Nuclear Security Administration via Wikimedia/public domain)


_By David Trilling_
Last updated: September 1, 2017

Scott Sagan of Stanford University and Benjamin Valentino of  Dartmouth  College designed a hypothetical scenario in which Iran –  responding to  new Western sanctions – starts a war by attacking a U.S.  ship and  killing thousands of American service members. The scenario, of  course,  is reminiscent of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941,  which  brought the U.S. into World War II. What follows, in this  hypothetical,  is a protracted conflict that has claimed thousands of  casualties on  both sides.
To win this war, Tehran must be  captured. America could invade with  ground troops or launch a  devastating attack that would kill thousands  of civilians.


The  scholars present three scenarios to a representative set of 780  adult  Americans as an alternative to a continued ground war that would  kill  20,000 American soldiers:
 1) Drop a nuclear bomb that would kill 100,000  Iranian civilians in Mashhad, Iran’s second city? 
2) Drop a nuke that  would kill 2 million Iranian civilians? Or
 3) drop conventional  bombs that would kill 100,000 Iranian civilians?

The respondents were asked questions to test their approval for each of these scenarios and their preference.

*Key takeaways:* 


A majority of Americans approved the bombing in all three scenarios.In   two scenarios, the respondents preferred the air strike to the risk of  a  ground war: The nuclear strike that kills 100,000 Iranian civilians  and  the conventional air strike that kills 100,000 civilians.A   small majority of respondents (52.3 percent) preferred the ground war   (and loss of 20,000 U.S. troops) to the death of 2 million Iranian   civilians in a nuclear strike.Among those who oppose  both types  of airstrikes, the majority judge them unethical. There is  not a  statistically significant difference in moral judgement of  nuclear  strikes or conventicle air strikes when 100,000 civilians are  killed:  “This suggests that anti-nuclear norms add little to the  aversion to  killing civilians.”Those who support the airstrikes (and thus the killing of noncombatant civilians) include:
69.5 percent of Republicans and 48.4 percent of Democrats;51.6 percent of people under age 60 and 70.5 percent of people age 60 and above;31.5 percent of Americans who oppose the death penalty and 67.3 percent of those who approve of the death penalty. They found no statistically significant difference by race (white or non-white), education or gender.In   an open-ended question, the majority of those who supported the  bombing  scenarios cited “saving American lives” or “ending the war  quickly” as  their reason. Surprising the researchers, a number also  suggested that  Iranian civilians, because their country started the  conflict, “were  somehow culpable or were less than human.”Given  the option of a  diplomatic solution that would not prosecute Iran’s  supreme leader,  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but would leave him without  political power: A  roughly equal proportion chose that scenario as  chose the nuclear air  strike that kills 100,000 civilians. 


https://journalistsresource.org/stud...trike-research

----------


## timosman

> Are you defending yourself against aggression? Are the people who are for some reason labeled "civilians" responsible for the aggression? Did the "civilians" elect aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" voluntarily act as informants in support of the aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" provide financial support to the aggressive leaders? Do they pay taxes? If the answers are "yes", then what makes the "civilians" "innocent"? Would dropping the WMD's deter future aggression?


Extreme social engineering.

----------


## oyarde

I would have to vote no currently . If I do it then yes , anyone else , no.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> I would have to vote no currently . If I do it then yes , anyone else , no.


Excellent double standard.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

*Photos of the World War II Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945*

  The bombs that exploded above the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first and last atomic weapons ever used in warfare.
 Newsweek

In the months leading up to August 6, 1945, rumors spread through the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
Although  the city was home to a number of military headquarters, arms  manufacturers and strategic shipping routes, it had been largely  undamaged by the ferocious Allied bombing campaigns that hit other  cities. People wondered why, and there was an eerie feeling of calm  before the storm.
This storm broke on August 6, at 8:15 on a clear  summer morning. A blinding flash, like a camera bulb going off, filled  the city, followed by a wave of intense heat. Shortly afterward, a deep  boom blasted apart walls and ignited firestorms.
In that instant,  almost 70 percent of Hiroshima was destroyed, and 30 percent of the  population was killed. Beyond the devastated city, the world also  changed irrevocably. The bomb that exploded in the air above the city,  dropped by an American bomber, was the first ever use of an atomic  weapon in human history.
It wouldn't be the last. Three days later  the city of Nagasaki, which was targeted for its large strategic  seaport, caught 11lb of plutonium from another American bomber plane.  The bomb exploded over the city’s industrial valley, completely  destroying everything in a half-mile radius and killing at least 40,000  people.

https://www.newsweek.com/world-war-i...t-1945-1055913







> I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans.  Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately.  If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.



If country's A's military attacks country B's military installations, it would be justified in your view for country B to retaliate to use WMDs on civilian populated cities of country A (because overwhelming force would terrorize/bring other country to its knees quickly/shorten military expenses)?

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Dec 19, 2018*

The Hiroshima Bombing Didn't Just End WWIIIt Kick-Started the Cold War*

The colossal power of the atomic bomb drove the worlds two leading superpowers into a new confrontation.
Sarah Pruitt

  Soon after arriving at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, U.S. President Harry S. Truman received word that the scientists of the Manhattan Project had successfully detonated the worlds first nuclear device in a remote corner of the New Mexico desert. 
On July 24, eight days after the Trinity test, Truman approached Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin, who along with Truman and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (soon to be succeeded by Clement Attlee) made up the Big Three Allied leaders gathered at Potsdam to determine the post-World War II future of Germany.
According  to Truman, he casually mentioned to Stalin that the United States had  a new weapon of unusual destructive force, but Stalin didnt seem  especially interested. All he said was that he was glad to hear it and  hoped we would make good use of it against the Japanese, Truman later  wrote in his memoir, _Year of Decision_s. 

President  Harry Truman, with a radio at hand aboard the cruiser USS Augusta,  reads reports of the first atomic bomb raid on Japan, while en route  home from the Potsdam conference on _August 6, 1945_. 
AP Photo

*Soviet Intelligence Knew About the Bomb*

For Truman, news of the successful Trinity test set up a momentous choice:  whether or not to deploy the worlds first weapon of mass destruction.  But it also came as a relief, as it meant the United States wouldnt  have to rely on the increasingly adversarial Soviet Union to enter World War II against Japan.
*READ MORE: The Inside Story of Harry Truman and Hiroshima*
Truman  never mentioned the words atomic or nuclear to Stalin, and the  assumption on the U.S. side was that the Soviet premier didnt know the  exact nature of the new weapon. In fact, while Truman himself had first  learned of the top-secret U.S. program to develop atomic weapons just three months earlier, after Franklin D. Roosevelts death, Soviet intelligence had begun receiving reports about the project as early as September 1941. 

While  Stalin didnt take the atomic threat as seriously during wartime as  some of his spies didhe had other problems on his hands, thanks to the  German onslaught and occupationTrumans words at Potsdam made more of  an impact than the president realized. 
We now know that Stalin  immediately went to his subordinates and said, we need to get Kurchatov  working faster on this, says Gregg Herken, emeritus professor of U.S.  diplomatic history at the University of California and the author of _The Winning Weapon: The Atomic Bomb in the Cold War_ and _Brotherhood of the Bomb_. Igor Kurchatov  was the nuclear physicist who headed up the Soviet atomic bomb  projectthe Soviet equivalent, in other words, of Manhattan Project  mastermind J. Robert Oppenheimer. 
*Little Boy Bomb Dropped on Hiroshima*

On  August 6, 1945, just days after the Potsdam Conference ended, the U.S.  bomber Enola Gay dropped the uranium bomb known as Little Boy on the  Japanese city of Hiroshima. Despite its devastating effects, Japan  didnt offer unconditional surrender right away, as the United States  had hoped. Then on August 8, Soviet forces invaded Japanese-occupied  Manchuria, violating an earlier non-aggression pact signed with Japan. 
*READ MORE: The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki*
*The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki*




Herken  argues that the Soviet invasion may have had at least as great an  effect on Japanese morale as the first atomic bomb. The last hope for  the Japanese government, the peace faction, was that the Soviet Union  might actually agree to negotiate a peace with the United States as a  neutral party, he explains. But once the Soviets invaded Manchuria, it  was clear that was not going to happen. 


https://www.history.com/news/hiroshi...-wwii-cold-war








*RELATED  CONTENT
*


*Live from NevadaIts an A-Bomb Test!*




*The Myth That Reagan Ended the Cold War With a Single Speech*




*Why the Berlin Airlift Was the First Major Battle of the Cold War*





*HISTORY Vault: The Cold War*




*The Man Who Survived Two Atomic Bombs*









https://www.history.com/news/hiroshi...-wwii-cold-war

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Today is 75th anniversary of  Heroshima WMD attack:





*This is what it looked like after the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima 75 years ago*

Jay Cannon, USA TODAY             Published  Aug. 5, 2020 


              On August 6, 1945, the U.S. B-29 bomber Enola Gay dropped an  atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, marking the first time the bomb was  used in warfare.          Wochit

The most powerful weapon to ever be used against other humans was detonated by the United States in Japan 75 years ago. 
On  August 6, 1945, a B-29 bomber famously known as the Enola Gay dropped  an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, marking the first of two times the bomb has  ever been used in warfare.
The death toll itself was mind-boggling. As many as 140,000 people ultimately died from the blast, but not all perished immediately. The residual health issues caused by intense radioactive fallout claimed thousands of lives in the months and years afterwards as well. 
The  city was leveled  less than 10 percent of the buildings in Hiroshima  were left undamaged by the bomb, according to the U.S. Department of  Energy.
Days later, on August 9, 1945, the U.S. dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, putting Japan on the brink of surrender. 
The  atomic bombings effectively ended WWII, but they have since served as a  brutal lesson about the dangers of nuclear warfare. Three-quarters of a  century later, tensions over nuclear weapons and how to ensure they are  not used again are still very much with us.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...an/3292406001/

----------


## enhanced_deficit

*76 Years Later, Debate Persists Over Hiroshima, Nagasaki Atomic Bombings*

 By   Carlin Becker, Zenger News   On 8/9/21

Hydrogen Bomb vs Atomic Bomb: What's The Difference?

  Seventy-six  years after the United States dropped nuclear weapons on two Japanese  cities, World War II historians still hotly contest president Harry S.  Truman's decision to drop atomic weapons on civilian populations.
Japan  was stubbornly refusing to surrender in the summer of 1945 despite  suffering crippling blows in battles with Allied Forces in the Pacific  theater. "Operation Downfall,"  a plan to force a surrender by invading and occupying the country,  would require 1.7 million U.S. troops, according to U.S. War Department  estimates. The invasion would have resulted in 1.7 to 4 million U.S.  casualties, including 400,000800,000 dead, and 510 million Japanese  dead, according to military leaders at the time.



 The radioactive plume from the bomb dropped on  Nagasaki City, as seen from 9.6 km away, in Koyagi-jima, Japan, August  9, 1945. The US B-29 superfortress Bockscar dropped the atomic bomb  nicknamed "Fat Man," which detonated over the northern part of Nagasaki  City just after 11 a.m.  Hiromichi Matsuda/Handout from Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum/Getty Images/Getty Images Truman  learned of America's effort to develop an atomic bomb only after the  death of his predecessor Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He ordered the  bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and 9.

Determining  the death tolls in Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been difficult, because  injuries and radiation exposure killed people for years afterward.
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates  that 70,000 people, mostly civilians, died in the initial blast when  the Enola Gay, a B-29 bomber, dropped the "Little Boy" bomb on  Hiroshima. The death toll likely climbed to 100,000 by the end of the  year, and related deaths after five years may have pushed the total to  200,000 as long-term effects of the radiation emerged.
When "Fat Man" flattened Nagasaki three days later, according to a Department of Energy estimate, the initial blast killed 40,000 and injured 60,000 more. The five-year death toll may have reached 140,000.
The  death and destruction was not out of proportion with aerial bombing  campaigns that had already been raging for three years, including those  carried out by the United States. "Operation Meetinghouse," the  fire-bombing of Tokyo by U.S. Army Air Forces on March 9, 1945, had a  higher immediate death toll and destroyed more territory than the  bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

President Harry S. Truman, pictured at his desk in  1945. The multibillion-dollar U.S. program to develop a nuclear weapon  was already in motion when he learned of it after taking office.  Getty Images 

But the atomic radiation's lasting effects, and death tolls that kept growing, set the two apart from other bombing campaigns.

"No  one knew," said Thomas Sutton, a political science professor at Baldwin  Wallace University whose parents both worked on the Manhattan Project.
"There  were all kinds of hypotheticals, and they certainly knew about the  effects of nuclear-induced illness from other experiences, " he told  Zenger, "but the mass scale and lingering effects  it was hypothetical  versus seeing it happen."

newsweek.com/76-years-later-debate-persists-over-hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bombings-1617625



Related

A socialist (self claimed 'oppressed people united') school of thought view:




> *Class forces behind U.S. genocide in Hiroshima, Nagasaki*
> John Catalinotto August 12, 2021

----------


## osan

> Voted no.
> 
> But there are many who attempt to justify it.


I don't think the answer is quite that simple.

What have modern "nations" tended to do?  They tend to intermix military and civilian populations.  Americans, Brits, Krauts... the list goes on.  So when a direct and present threat issues from such a population center and the consequence of doing nothing results in your own being annihiliated, I would say that nuking the threat stands centrally within the circle of reasonable response.

It's a $#@!ty circumstance, to be sure, but when the result of inaction is suicide...

I see not only no reason to hand the lives of one's own over for destruction, I see an obligation to protect those lives, even if it means genocidal acts against an aggressor.  At the end of the day, civilian populations are effectively complicit for having tolerated the intolerable.  We Americans are as guilty of this as anyone else on the planet.

----------


## tebowlives

> I don't think the answer is quite that simple.
> 
> What have modern "nations" tended to do?  They tend to intermix military and civilian populations.  Americans, Brits, Krauts... the list goes on.  So when a direct and present threat issues from such a population center and the consequence of doing nothing results in your own being annihiliated, I would say that nuking the threat stands centrally within the circle of reasonable response.
> 
> It's a $#@!ty circumstance, to be sure, but when the result of inaction is suicide...
> 
> I see not only no reason to hand the lives of one's own over for destruction, I see an obligation to protect those lives, even if it means genocidal acts against an aggressor.  At the end of the day, civilian populations are effectively complicit for having tolerated the intolerable.  We Americans are as guilty of this as anyone else on the planet.


Agreed. Nuke them until they glow.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Certainly wasn't justifiable to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

----------


## osan

> Certainly wasn't justifiable to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


How do you reason?

----------


## osan

> Certainly wasn't justifiable to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Depends on the assumptions going in.  Whose lives are more valuable to Americans, their own or those of the of the Japanese?  I'd vote for the former, all else equal.  Sue me for being clannish.

Regardless of who was at fault, and I submit that we were all there, the war had become fact.  Therefore, the first question to be answered was whether we wished to prevail, or be defeated.  Prevail, you say?  Right.  So that immediately answers the question of whose lives are of greater value TO US (or should be for any rational human possessing an IQ, such as they may prove).  Looking at it in simplest terms, I value American lives more than those of the enemy.  Were it otherwise, I would not be fighting them, but would indeed remain inert and submit myself to their mercy, which in the case of the Japanese, would likely have cost me my head.  

The grim reality was this: invasion of the Japanese homeland was going to likely cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.  Under conventional conditions, there was no way the Japs were going to roll over. The bombs convinced them that annihilation of the genotype was next on the bill and that the Americans were more than willing to wipe them out to the last child.  This placed before their Jackass In Chief the very real, stark, and immediate choice of whether "honor" was worth the price of a real and true genocide.  He wisely decided it was not and capitulated in a matter of a couple of days.  This was the best possible outcome, given the reality of who the Japanese were, just prior to the bombs.  Months more of saturation raids on all the large Japanse population centers would have taken a far higher toll, likely in the millions or even tens of millions.  The shock factor of the bombs bought the Japs some much needed religion, so I must submit that using them was indeed justified.  It was $#@!ty, mind you, but so is the reality of industrialized, mechanized warfare with which we humans have saddled ourselves.

We are a _really_ $#@!ty species.  We suffer FAIL far too often.  We do good things, true - lots of it, and yet the truer measure of the beast rests with the worst it is willing to do, and we are ever so willing to sound the depths of unspeakable depravity.  In short, there is very little, if anything, to recommend us, which I suspect explains why nobody from other star systems have contacted us.  Why would they?  Other than to eat or enslave us, what would be the benefit of contact?  I see none, given how wildly dangerous we tend to become, even on the flimsiest of pretexts.  We're a raft of horrid little animals who pretend to be "civil", but only when it suits our purposes, our proclivity being to retreat into unspeakable viciousness the moment we deem it fitting, and again for the least reasons.

So at the end of the day, while I deplore what we do in a general sense, I cannot disagree with the decision to level two entire cities in the way we did, given the realities of humans with tech.  In a word, and speaking to the mean as I am oft wont to do: we suck.

Final word: to those who believe war should have rules, I say get bent.  War should be with but one rule: defeat the enemy no matter what it takes.  Let it become so incomprehensibly horrific such that nobody would so much as contemplate it, regardless of how power hungry.  That is what MAD was all about and it was the one single right thing America and the rest of the relevant powers did in the post-war world.  The prospect of universal annihilation was so scary, it kept everyone nominally polite... for a while.  But being the rotten little monkeys we are, even that wore away in surprisingly little time with America deciding to screw around in SE Asia, Soviets in Afghanistan, and so on right down to this very day.  We never learn because we don't want to.  We like playing the odds and one day snake eyes will be rolled and then things will get really interesting.  And I don't think it's that far off.

Humans.

----------

