Middle East conflict...
Moderators: ihatejacks, Section Moderators, Moderators
71 posts • Page 4 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
by qingdaoman » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:14 pm
*sigh*
You were doing sooooo well until you made that post
The American Civil War was not a war about slavery. Slavery was one issue, but the main reason for the war being fought was a political one. Simply put, the South wanted to secede and have their own government; the North would not allow it.
There were people fighting in the south who OPPOSED slavery...but wanted political independence. And there were people fighting in the north who SUPPORTED slavery...but rejected the notion of seceding.
And so far as EQUALITY goes, those same people who were fighting denied blacks the right to vote, the right to equal employment/pay, etc.
If you honestly think that the civil war was about SLAVERY, please, go back to your history books.
And please consider your math skills a little, too...you try to represent this as 600,000 people dying to save the slaves. Actually, more than HALF of the people who died in that war were fighting FOR the south...and therefore to PRESERVE slavery. That says quite a bit about the doctrine of the day
And having said all that, my congratulations that, yet AGAIN, you entirely avoid answering any of the questions I raised. For your benefit, here they are again:
P.S. -- Before you go claiming victory in a particular argument, you might wanna' wait to see what the response is. Your previous "doctrine of the day" argument was a far, FAR better argument than this one.
You were doing sooooo well until you made that post
The American Civil War was not a war about slavery. Slavery was one issue, but the main reason for the war being fought was a political one. Simply put, the South wanted to secede and have their own government; the North would not allow it.
There were people fighting in the south who OPPOSED slavery...but wanted political independence. And there were people fighting in the north who SUPPORTED slavery...but rejected the notion of seceding.
And so far as EQUALITY goes, those same people who were fighting denied blacks the right to vote, the right to equal employment/pay, etc.
If you honestly think that the civil war was about SLAVERY, please, go back to your history books.
And please consider your math skills a little, too...you try to represent this as 600,000 people dying to save the slaves. Actually, more than HALF of the people who died in that war were fighting FOR the south...and therefore to PRESERVE slavery. That says quite a bit about the doctrine of the day
And having said all that, my congratulations that, yet AGAIN, you entirely avoid answering any of the questions I raised. For your benefit, here they are again:
1) Bin Laden had long ago declared his intent to attack the U.S. But okay, lets say it was not a declared war. TODAY, it is definitely a declared war...so do you argue that if the SAME THING was done now, it would be acceptable?
I fail to see how asking about a soldier deliberately killing babies is irrelevant...had US soldiers killed exactly the same number of Japanese children/babies in direct combat, nobody today would be debating if it was right. They'd condemn it out of hand. By today's doctrines, OR by the doctrines of that time. I don't see how the decision to order a soldier to kill them with a gun, or with a bomb, is morally any different. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
P.S. -- Before you go claiming victory in a particular argument, you might wanna' wait to see what the response is. Your previous "doctrine of the day" argument was a far, FAR better argument than this one.
-
qingdaoman - Grinder
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:39 pm
by miamipuck » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:36 pm
QingdaoMan wrote:*sigh*
You were doing sooooo well until you made that post
The American Civil War was not a war about slavery. Slavery was one issue, but the main reason for the war being fought was a political one. Simply put, the South wanted to secede and have their own government; the North would not allow it.
QingdaoMan just for the record I have studied the US civil war quite extensively. You are wrong. However there are still plenty of pissed off Southerner's that would say otherwise.
You are correct Sigh:
"Beware of people that speak with forked tongues." Geronimo (not really but sounds good enough since we are using logic based on fallacy)
Why on earth did the South want to secede? Was it because the north was too cold? Did the Northeners have funny accents? Or did they not like New Yorkers attitudes?
No it was because they required slaves to pick cotton for their agrarian economy. You know cheap labor.
Did the North find this acceptable? uhhhhhhhh NO!
The South did not just wake up one day with a wild hair up thier ass and say fuck the North, after a binge drinking episode that involved moonshine It was a long series of provacations that almost exclusively involved slavery.
I can sight 50 examples of such. I will not but if you insist I will.
Yes it was put on record that R.E. Lee hated slavery and abhorred the practice, however him being a Virginian and his states subsequent vote for seccession he opted to fight for Virginia. Still that fact does not take away from the argument that the Civil War was in large or the most part a result of one side loving slavery and the other hating it.
You can not have it both ways.
-
miamipuck - Whale Hunter
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:20 pm
by qingdaoman » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:45 pm
Quick history lesson:
It is true that "the victors get to write history", and of course American history texts like to teach that the Civil War was a righteous war to end slavery. Here are some items not generally included in that education:
* The crux of the problem between north and south was economic. The south was experiencing a huge economic boom as the result of its cotton plantations, and other agricultural enterprises. And they came to resent more and more having to pay taxes to a government that paid more attention to northern needs than southern needs. They felt that since they were making most of the money, they should get most of the money. This was the root of the conflict.
* Of course, slavery was a big factor in that economic success...cheap labor in abundant supply. However, even in the south, many people were actually pushing for an end to slavery. The thing is, they felt that to stop slavery immediately would cause too much economic hardship, and therefore wanted a strategy of gradual change (of course, there were also many slave-owners who thought slavery was a great thing).
* When war broke out, the south was at first actively supported by England, who saw it as an opportunity to destabilize the colonies that had rebelled against it, and to build closer ties with the economically affluent south. This was an obvious threat to the north; the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't just a noble effort to gain freedom for slaves; it was a political manoevre to undermine British support for the south, as most Brits supported the emancipation proclamation and refused to let their gov't support the south any more.
* Most important, many of the leaders in the south said that even if slavery were not an issue, they would still fight with the north, so long as the north tried to take their hard-earned wealth and impose northern political agendas on them.
So yes, slavery WAS an issue. And there definitely WERE some people who were fighting specifically for the freedom of slaves (and I give full credit to those who did so). But in the end, slavery was more a convenient excuse than an actual cause. The root was economic and political. The core is this: Even if the north had chosen to ignore slavery in the south, the civil war would still have happened.
It is true that "the victors get to write history", and of course American history texts like to teach that the Civil War was a righteous war to end slavery. Here are some items not generally included in that education:
* The crux of the problem between north and south was economic. The south was experiencing a huge economic boom as the result of its cotton plantations, and other agricultural enterprises. And they came to resent more and more having to pay taxes to a government that paid more attention to northern needs than southern needs. They felt that since they were making most of the money, they should get most of the money. This was the root of the conflict.
* Of course, slavery was a big factor in that economic success...cheap labor in abundant supply. However, even in the south, many people were actually pushing for an end to slavery. The thing is, they felt that to stop slavery immediately would cause too much economic hardship, and therefore wanted a strategy of gradual change (of course, there were also many slave-owners who thought slavery was a great thing).
* When war broke out, the south was at first actively supported by England, who saw it as an opportunity to destabilize the colonies that had rebelled against it, and to build closer ties with the economically affluent south. This was an obvious threat to the north; the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't just a noble effort to gain freedom for slaves; it was a political manoevre to undermine British support for the south, as most Brits supported the emancipation proclamation and refused to let their gov't support the south any more.
* Most important, many of the leaders in the south said that even if slavery were not an issue, they would still fight with the north, so long as the north tried to take their hard-earned wealth and impose northern political agendas on them.
So yes, slavery WAS an issue. And there definitely WERE some people who were fighting specifically for the freedom of slaves (and I give full credit to those who did so). But in the end, slavery was more a convenient excuse than an actual cause. The root was economic and political. The core is this: Even if the north had chosen to ignore slavery in the south, the civil war would still have happened.
-
qingdaoman - Grinder
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:39 pm
by qingdaoman » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:47 pm
And I'm curious as to your continued refusal to answer my questions. I show you the respect of responding to every issue YOU raise...I'd expect the same courtesy in return.
-
qingdaoman - Grinder
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:39 pm
by tightpoker » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:56 pm
Wow, quite the topic we have going here.
I am not a historian and all my facts I know come from what I have read, heard and accumulated through my somewhat short life thus far. I can't vouch for their accuracy and I'm sure 50% of my sources can't vouch for theirs as well. Fact finding without bias is a bitch.
That said...
My opinion is that the bomb was not pretty, but is was the best option all things considered. My grandpa fought against the Japanese and he had the lion's share of respect for them as soldiers, but close to zero as human beings. This isn't an attempt to dehumanize the Japanese, but they embraced the warrior spirit to the very very bitter end. To think that Japan would ever surrender without military intervention is highly improbable.
I think the most damning evidence of this is that after America hit them with the first bomb, they still didn't surrender. I mean, we can argue until the cows come home on whether or not the first bomb was right or not, but the fact remains that the Japanese said no to surrendering after the first bomb. That takes guts. Seeing an entire town blown into a cosmic radiactive mushroom and still being able to say "Bring it on!" is a true testament to Japanese will. (Don't forget the firebombings as well, where we pretty much burned entire cities to the ground.)
I took a high level philosophy ethics class back in my college days, so I don't think you can break this argument into a 'Yes' and 'No' statement. It's certainly not black and white. Life is an exceedingly hard variable to quantify and compare. Is the life of one American solider worth that of 1 million Japanese? Opinions will vary, but that's because they are opinions. You could argue that life is equal on a 1:1 basis. I give you this argument then:
You are a sheriff in a town. A man who you know for 100% fact is innocent, sits in your prison. A lynch mob waits outsite, demanding for you to release him for crimes committed. If you do not release him, they will find 5 random citizens and lynch them instead. Do you free the man? How about if it was 100 random citizens to be lynched? How about if it was your wife in jail?
Cold logic only in context of this question states that you should free the man, because only 1 innocent person dies instead of 5. On the other hand, long term thinking asks whether or not the lynch mob will come back again and again, demanding more lynchings. On the other hand, a high sense of principle impells you not to release the man, because an innocent person should not be killed for a crime he did not commit.
My personal opinion is that I would never give up the man in the cell, nor would I sacrifice more soliders in a war with Japan given an alternative. More people that had no issue die as a result, but that's how I place value on life. If you were (and do) argue for the other side, I can completely understand your stance and opinion; I just happen to not have your opinion.
On a related note, much like the sheriff scenario, there are many linked variables that come into play. If we massed a ground invasion of Japan, what are the chances the Japanese would employ women and children as fighters? Or the option of forced conscription of all men and boys into the Army. If that happened, would we have killed more men, women and children overall with a ground invasion force than with bombs? What about the effect of that type of battle on our soldiers coming home? What about the tens of thousands of POWs and camps the Japanese had, who would almost certainly execute every last POW if America invaded to free up resources? There's so many variables that bringing it down to the level of "the innocent women and children" is vast over-simplification.
Most of all, a lot of the evidence points that there was major speculation back then on how things were going to turn out, when the information was fresh and available. Looking back with 20/20 vision, there is still a huge debate going on as to whether or not it should have been dropped. I think that should show that it was definitely not an easy decision and not one that can be shown in stark black and white.
I am not a historian and all my facts I know come from what I have read, heard and accumulated through my somewhat short life thus far. I can't vouch for their accuracy and I'm sure 50% of my sources can't vouch for theirs as well. Fact finding without bias is a bitch.
That said...
My opinion is that the bomb was not pretty, but is was the best option all things considered. My grandpa fought against the Japanese and he had the lion's share of respect for them as soldiers, but close to zero as human beings. This isn't an attempt to dehumanize the Japanese, but they embraced the warrior spirit to the very very bitter end. To think that Japan would ever surrender without military intervention is highly improbable.
I think the most damning evidence of this is that after America hit them with the first bomb, they still didn't surrender. I mean, we can argue until the cows come home on whether or not the first bomb was right or not, but the fact remains that the Japanese said no to surrendering after the first bomb. That takes guts. Seeing an entire town blown into a cosmic radiactive mushroom and still being able to say "Bring it on!" is a true testament to Japanese will. (Don't forget the firebombings as well, where we pretty much burned entire cities to the ground.)
I took a high level philosophy ethics class back in my college days, so I don't think you can break this argument into a 'Yes' and 'No' statement. It's certainly not black and white. Life is an exceedingly hard variable to quantify and compare. Is the life of one American solider worth that of 1 million Japanese? Opinions will vary, but that's because they are opinions. You could argue that life is equal on a 1:1 basis. I give you this argument then:
You are a sheriff in a town. A man who you know for 100% fact is innocent, sits in your prison. A lynch mob waits outsite, demanding for you to release him for crimes committed. If you do not release him, they will find 5 random citizens and lynch them instead. Do you free the man? How about if it was 100 random citizens to be lynched? How about if it was your wife in jail?
Cold logic only in context of this question states that you should free the man, because only 1 innocent person dies instead of 5. On the other hand, long term thinking asks whether or not the lynch mob will come back again and again, demanding more lynchings. On the other hand, a high sense of principle impells you not to release the man, because an innocent person should not be killed for a crime he did not commit.
All of this comes down to one very simple item for me -- arguments supporting the deliberate targeting of a Japanese civillian population are based on an implicit assumption that Japanese civillian lives have less value than American civillian lives.
My personal opinion is that I would never give up the man in the cell, nor would I sacrifice more soliders in a war with Japan given an alternative. More people that had no issue die as a result, but that's how I place value on life. If you were (and do) argue for the other side, I can completely understand your stance and opinion; I just happen to not have your opinion.
On a related note, much like the sheriff scenario, there are many linked variables that come into play. If we massed a ground invasion of Japan, what are the chances the Japanese would employ women and children as fighters? Or the option of forced conscription of all men and boys into the Army. If that happened, would we have killed more men, women and children overall with a ground invasion force than with bombs? What about the effect of that type of battle on our soldiers coming home? What about the tens of thousands of POWs and camps the Japanese had, who would almost certainly execute every last POW if America invaded to free up resources? There's so many variables that bringing it down to the level of "the innocent women and children" is vast over-simplification.
Most of all, a lot of the evidence points that there was major speculation back then on how things were going to turn out, when the information was fresh and available. Looking back with 20/20 vision, there is still a huge debate going on as to whether or not it should have been dropped. I think that should show that it was definitely not an easy decision and not one that can be shown in stark black and white.
-
tightpoker - Site Admin
- Posts: 3314
- Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:27 pm
by miamipuck » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:12 pm
QingdaoMan wrote:* When war broke out, the south was at first actively supported by England, who saw it as an opportunity to destabilize the colonies that had rebelled against it, and to build closer ties with the economically affluent south. This was an obvious threat to the north; the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't just a noble effort to gain freedom for slaves; it was a political manoevre to undermine British support for the south, as most Brits supported the emancipation proclamation and refused to let their gov't support the south any more.
Please Britain was a non event in this war. The Emancipation Proclamation came into effect after the battle of Antietam. It had more to do with the psyche of the North because they seemingly were losing every battle and Lincoln wanted to issue said Proclamation after a victory by the North. You are correct it was political but not because of Britain but rather Lincoln needed to define the war. As such he was quite succesful in this result.
This Proclamation energized many to seeing the war through. Although it was a good 6 months to Gettysburgh and the South still had some of their greatest victories to come ( Chancellorsville and Chicamauga).
Here this is better:
January 1863 - The Emancipation Proclamation
In an effort to placate the slave-holding border states, Lincoln resisted the demands of radical Republicans for complete abolition. Yet some Union generals, such as General B. F. Butler, declared slaves escaping to their lines "contraband of war," not to be returned to their masters. Other generals decreed that the slaves of men rebelling against the Union were to be considered free. Congress, too, had been moving toward abolition. In 1861, Congress had passed an act stating that all slaves employed against the Union were to be considered free. In 1862, another act stated that all slaves of men who supported the Confederacy were to be considered free. Lincoln, aware of the public's growing support of abolition, issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, declaring that all slaves in areas still in rebellion were, in the eyes of the federal government, free.
BTW I am done I am going to Vegas and going to have fun. In fact you may characterize me as a terrorist. I am going to blow up all the Donkeys at the poker tables with my dynamite rigged TNT nuts. ( my cards not my testicals in case you were wondering QD!
)-
miamipuck - Whale Hunter
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:20 pm
by qingdaoman » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:21 pm
MJ,
Thank you very, very much, this is the kind of response I really appreciate. You actually respond to my questions, and give reasonable arguments in return
I'm not looking to win the argument (despite appearances), only to get people thinking and examining their own arguments
Agreed 100%. I can, in fact, find "facts" to support whatever side of the debate I wanna' be on. Which I why I like to focus more on asking questions.
Actually, that is both true, and not true. Japanese culture at the time was deeply religious...the entire war was in many ways a religious crusade, based on an unshakeable belief that their emperor was god, and that they were carrying out god's will.
After the dropping of the bomb, from a cultural point of view, the emperor could not simply surrender right away. He had to first go through elaborate ceremonies to pay obeisance to his ancestors, and to atone for his failure in leading the Japanese nation.
Would they have surrendered finally, without another bomb? Or even without the first? It is a moot argument, one that cannot be proven one way or another. Based on what I've read, I tend to believe that they would have surrendered, but that is not a "fact" I can prove.
However, this seems to assume that it was okay to drop the bomb as long as it caused them to surrender. And that is an area in which you and I would disagree, it appears. Would you argue that it would be okay for another nation to use a WMD against us, if it resulted in a surrender that saved lives?
Again, agree completely Much of what I've been doing is simply trying to get people to question what they think (and yes, I do this with myself, too).
The "for the greater good" argument. A fun one...and, like you say, one with many different answers. I think that "what I believe is right" and "what I would do" are very possibly two different things.
But let me play with that a little...what if, instead of "some guy" who you believe is innocent, the person inside the jail is your wife, or your child? Would you then turn them over to the lynch mob in order to save 5, or 10, or 50 people from being killed? Very likely not.
In this case, regardless of my previous posts about "universal equality", I definitely place a higher priority on the lives of those who are close to me than on others...and I will sacrifice others to protect those I love, ethics questions notwithstanding.
So...give me the choice of saving my wife, or killing a defenseless Japanese, baby, yeah, I'd kill the baby (god save me from ever being in a position to have to make such a choice).
And I accept that stance, so long as you add the proviso that you will not condemn others who would do the same to you. For example, if you had three family members killed by the lynching mob because the sherrif didn't give up the man, you would still say that the sherriff did the right thing (even though you grieved for your family). Or if a military enemy of the U.S. used a WMD against American civillians in order to save the lives of some of their soldiers, you would argue that it was a justifiable tactic (even though you obviously don't like it).
My problem isn't with the ethical decision itself; it is with the unequal application of that decision. The argument that it is moral for us to act this way, but immoral if others do it.
Every single response to this question has focused on justifying "Why I think it was right for us to do this". What I'm waiting for is the response to "How I would react if someone did exactly the same thing to us".
Thank you very, very much, this is the kind of response I really appreciate. You actually respond to my questions, and give reasonable arguments in return
I'm not looking to win the argument (despite appearances), only to get people thinking and examining their own arguments
I am not a historian and all my facts I know come from what I have read, heard and accumulated through my somewhat short life thus far. I can't vouch for their accuracy and I'm sure 50% of my sources can't vouch for theirs as well. Fact finding without bias is a bitch.
Agreed 100%. I can, in fact, find "facts" to support whatever side of the debate I wanna' be on. Which I why I like to focus more on asking questions.
I think the most damning evidence of this is that after America hit them with the first bomb, they still didn't surrender. I mean, we can argue until the cows come home on whether or not the first bomb was right or not, but the fact remains that the Japanese said no to surrendering after the first bomb. That takes guts. Seeing an entire town blown into a cosmic radiactive mushroom and still being able to say "Bring it on!" is a true testament to Japanese will. (Don't forget the firebombings as well, where we pretty much burned entire cities to the ground.)
Actually, that is both true, and not true. Japanese culture at the time was deeply religious...the entire war was in many ways a religious crusade, based on an unshakeable belief that their emperor was god, and that they were carrying out god's will.
After the dropping of the bomb, from a cultural point of view, the emperor could not simply surrender right away. He had to first go through elaborate ceremonies to pay obeisance to his ancestors, and to atone for his failure in leading the Japanese nation.
Would they have surrendered finally, without another bomb? Or even without the first? It is a moot argument, one that cannot be proven one way or another. Based on what I've read, I tend to believe that they would have surrendered, but that is not a "fact" I can prove.
However, this seems to assume that it was okay to drop the bomb as long as it caused them to surrender. And that is an area in which you and I would disagree, it appears. Would you argue that it would be okay for another nation to use a WMD against us, if it resulted in a surrender that saved lives?
I took a high level philosophy ethics class back in my college days, so I don't think you can break this argument into a 'Yes' and 'No' statement. It's certainly not black and white.
Again, agree completely
Much of what I've been doing is simply trying to get people to question what they think (and yes, I do this with myself, too). You are a sheriff in a town. A man who you know for 100% fact is innocent, sits in your prison. A lynch mob waits outsite, demanding for you to release him for crimes committed. If you do not release him, they will find 5 random citizens and lynch them instead. Do you free the man? How about if it was 100 random citizens to be lynched? How about if it was your wife in jail?
The "for the greater good" argument. A fun one...and, like you say, one with many different answers. I think that "what I believe is right" and "what I would do" are very possibly two different things.
But let me play with that a little...what if, instead of "some guy" who you believe is innocent, the person inside the jail is your wife, or your child? Would you then turn them over to the lynch mob in order to save 5, or 10, or 50 people from being killed? Very likely not.
In this case, regardless of my previous posts about "universal equality", I definitely place a higher priority on the lives of those who are close to me than on others...and I will sacrifice others to protect those I love, ethics questions notwithstanding.
So...give me the choice of saving my wife, or killing a defenseless Japanese, baby, yeah, I'd kill the baby (god save me from ever being in a position to have to make such a choice).
My personal opinion is that I would never give up the man in the cell, nor would I sacrifice more soliders in a war with Japan given an alternative. More people that had no issue die as a result, but that's how I place value on life. If you were (and do) argue for the other side, I can completely understand your stance and opinion; I just happen to not have your opinion.
And I accept that stance, so long as you add the proviso that you will not condemn others who would do the same to you. For example, if you had three family members killed by the lynching mob because the sherrif didn't give up the man, you would still say that the sherriff did the right thing (even though you grieved for your family). Or if a military enemy of the U.S. used a WMD against American civillians in order to save the lives of some of their soldiers, you would argue that it was a justifiable tactic (even though you obviously don't like it).
My problem isn't with the ethical decision itself; it is with the unequal application of that decision. The argument that it is moral for us to act this way, but immoral if others do it.
Every single response to this question has focused on justifying "Why I think it was right for us to do this". What I'm waiting for is the response to "How I would react if someone did exactly the same thing to us".
Last edited by qingdaoman on Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
qingdaoman - Grinder
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:39 pm
by miamipuck » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:26 pm
QingdaoMan wrote:And I'm curious as to your continued refusal to answer my questions. I show you the respect of responding to every issue YOU raise...I'd expect the same courtesy in return.
Your questions have no bearing into the context of dropping an Atomic bomb in 1945! I stated that clearly here:
I wrote:Red Herring:
a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments.
Yes, I agree the argument you are using is a ridiculous usage of a Red Herring!
Those questions have absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should have used the Atomic Bomb in 1945. Which I believe we should have given Truman's options.
If you want to compare 9/11. I think it is a completely disingenuous argument to equate that with the dropping of the Atomic Bomb!
1.) It was used at a time when almost the entire world was at War.................. a Declared war.
2.) No matter how you slice it it saved many lives. Both ours and theirs.
3.) It followed with the standard war doctrine of the day.
My lord why is it everyone wants to rewrite history or distort facts and make links between then and now.
Truman did what he thought he had to do. Ask him if he would do the same thing over again? Oh wait you can not he is dead.
Just like I can not go and get Hitler and beat the piss out of the little midget.
Your questions are totally rendered moot by a neat little invention..................... Laser guided bombs!
-
miamipuck - Whale Hunter
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:20 pm
by qingdaoman » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:40 pm
Miami,
That is just sad. You disappoint me.
YOU raised the issue of 9/11 not being relevant because it was not part of a declared war. It is quite reasonable for me to ask if you would therefore consider that a 9/11 style attack would be acceptable now that war has in fact been declared.
And my second question relates DIRECTLY to the use of the bomb. Very simple. If it is immoral to give a soldier an order (in 1945) to deliberately slaughter unarmed children/babies with a gun/knife in order to intimidate a populace (as most people I believe would argue it is), why is it not immoral to give a soldier an order to deliberately slaughter unarmed children/babies with a bomb to accomplish the same goal?
And MJ...since I suspect you are more up to the task than Miami...perhaps you could take a shot at my latter question? Cuz that really is the crux of the issue to me.
I do not know anyone who would argue that a soldier (either at the time of WW II, or today) would be justified in marching into a town and simply shooting down everyone, including young children and babies, simply because doing so may cause their enemy to surrender. Such an action would be considered barbaric and unacceptable by any civilized nation I can think of. Nor could I see the public supporting a government or a military leader who commanded it soldiers to take such actions (just look at the backlash when such events were reported in Vietnam, for example).
Now, we simply change the weapon from a gun to a bomb...and suddenly everything changes. NOW we can kill those children and babies indiscriminately, with no twinge of conscience. The same people are doing the killing. The same people are being killed. Only thing we've changed is the weapon.
Oh, yeah...and we don't have to be there to watch them die.
That is just sad. You disappoint me.
YOU raised the issue of 9/11 not being relevant because it was not part of a declared war. It is quite reasonable for me to ask if you would therefore consider that a 9/11 style attack would be acceptable now that war has in fact been declared.
And my second question relates DIRECTLY to the use of the bomb. Very simple. If it is immoral to give a soldier an order (in 1945) to deliberately slaughter unarmed children/babies with a gun/knife in order to intimidate a populace (as most people I believe would argue it is), why is it not immoral to give a soldier an order to deliberately slaughter unarmed children/babies with a bomb to accomplish the same goal?
And MJ...since I suspect you are more up to the task than Miami...perhaps you could take a shot at my latter question? Cuz that really is the crux of the issue to me.
I do not know anyone who would argue that a soldier (either at the time of WW II, or today) would be justified in marching into a town and simply shooting down everyone, including young children and babies, simply because doing so may cause their enemy to surrender. Such an action would be considered barbaric and unacceptable by any civilized nation I can think of. Nor could I see the public supporting a government or a military leader who commanded it soldiers to take such actions (just look at the backlash when such events were reported in Vietnam, for example).
Now, we simply change the weapon from a gun to a bomb...and suddenly everything changes. NOW we can kill those children and babies indiscriminately, with no twinge of conscience. The same people are doing the killing. The same people are being killed. Only thing we've changed is the weapon.
Oh, yeah...and we don't have to be there to watch them die.
-
qingdaoman - Grinder
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:39 pm
by bigdil511 » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:55 pm
See the problem QD is that I agree that there is nobody who will send a bunch of soldiers out and kill innocent people (Except maybe Chairman Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, to name a few), because it is much easier to drop a bomb on someone and not have to watch them die. There is no politician that will say go shoot a bunch of kids and women, but dropping a bomb is a much less personal way of obtaining that objective. Again thats the point of dropping the bomb, I am not saying I support these ideas. Basically its easier for the politicians (no shit about sending troops to gun down a bunch of unarmed people) and it helps the soldiers sleep better at night, not having to gun down a bunch of innocent people. I agree its basically two different ways to the same affect, but I could see one being a lot easier for people in that time to deal with.
-
bigdil511 - Whale Hunter
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:12 pm
by goofyballer » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:10 pm
Eruu wrote:goofyballer wrote:this thread is just a bad, bad idea
I should have known better.
GOD DAMN IT, I WARNED ALL OF YOU! This is really close to getting locked.
EDIT: Maybe not, I mean, all of you are participating in it willfully, but all this pointless arguing among people that probably aren't going to change their viewpoints based on what someone else says is kinda dumb. Come on guys, this kind of bullshit usually not taking place here is why this forum is so great. There's plenty of knuckleheads waiting to pointlessly argue with you on 2+2 any time you like, if you're so inclined.
-
goofyballer - Whale Hunter
- Posts: 3790
- Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:58 pm
by mervhage » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:15 pm
No disrespect to anyone.
The reason the way the world is, is because of Illuminati. If Illuminati wants war, then they get war. If they want to drop a bomb and kill a bunch of civilians, then they do it. Basically, what the want, THEY DO IT. You know why? B/c we're busy policing each other and keeping each other in check. They deliberately put their business out in front of our faces and we continously ignore them. They speak in symbolism. Most people might immediately dismiss what I'm saying, b/c they'll say, "he's a conspiracy wingnut, he's off his rocker, he's crazy, etc.". Mission accomplished.
Listen. You have to learn how to stop thinking in a vacuum. You need to understand how to eliminate the barriers in your mentals, so you can achieve a higher plane of thinking. In essence, you must think 4th dimensionally, because this is how they think.
In order to achieve this mental status, you must obtain the knowledge of self. In otherwords, if you don't know yourself, how can you know anything? Sure you "learn" in school, but this is not what I'm referring to when I say you can't know anything.
Wise men don't play the role of the fool. The first thing Man must obtain is 12 jewels:
1: knowledge
2: wisdom
3: understanding
to help you achieve
4: freedom
5: justice
6: equality
7: food
8: clothing
9: shelter
after that
10: love
11: peace and
12: happiness
If you don't break the mental barrier, you will forever be stuck on stupid. Which is what they want.
Some might say I'm preaching my opinions. This is not true. I want people to wake the fuck up. I want people to stop believing all the lies. Children are dying, who cares where they're from? I can't stand human suffering. That is my point. So fuck 2x2 for banning me b/c I'm trying to speak the truth.
My sig says it all. Why are we so educated to be stupid? Secondly, don't be in a hurry all the time to go nowhere.
Peace.
Positive Energy Always Corrects Errors
The reason the way the world is, is because of Illuminati. If Illuminati wants war, then they get war. If they want to drop a bomb and kill a bunch of civilians, then they do it. Basically, what the want, THEY DO IT. You know why? B/c we're busy policing each other and keeping each other in check. They deliberately put their business out in front of our faces and we continously ignore them. They speak in symbolism. Most people might immediately dismiss what I'm saying, b/c they'll say, "he's a conspiracy wingnut, he's off his rocker, he's crazy, etc.". Mission accomplished.
Listen. You have to learn how to stop thinking in a vacuum. You need to understand how to eliminate the barriers in your mentals, so you can achieve a higher plane of thinking. In essence, you must think 4th dimensionally, because this is how they think.
In order to achieve this mental status, you must obtain the knowledge of self. In otherwords, if you don't know yourself, how can you know anything? Sure you "learn" in school, but this is not what I'm referring to when I say you can't know anything.
Wise men don't play the role of the fool. The first thing Man must obtain is 12 jewels:
1: knowledge
2: wisdom
3: understanding
to help you achieve
4: freedom
5: justice
6: equality
7: food
8: clothing
9: shelter
after that
10: love
11: peace and
12: happiness
If you don't break the mental barrier, you will forever be stuck on stupid. Which is what they want.
Some might say I'm preaching my opinions. This is not true. I want people to wake the fuck up. I want people to stop believing all the lies. Children are dying, who cares where they're from? I can't stand human suffering. That is my point. So fuck 2x2 for banning me b/c I'm trying to speak the truth.
My sig says it all. Why are we so educated to be stupid? Secondly, don't be in a hurry all the time to go nowhere.
Peace.
Positive Energy Always Corrects Errors
-
mervhage - Whale Hunter
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:12 am
by miamipuck » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:25 pm
goofyballer wrote:Eruu wrote:goofyballer wrote:this thread is just a bad, bad idea
I should have known better.
GOD DAMN IT, I WARNED ALL OF YOU! This is really close to getting locked.
EDIT: Maybe not, I mean, all of you are participating in it willfully, but all this pointless arguing among people that probably aren't going to change their viewpoints based on what someone else says is kinda dumb. Come on guys, this kind of bullshit usually not taking place here is why this forum is so great. There's plenty of knuckleheads waiting to pointlessly argue with you on 2+2 any time you like, if you're so inclined.
Fuck you Goofy!
Actually as lame or sad as I am for not answering a BS question, I think this was quite a civil discourse.
-
miamipuck - Whale Hunter
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:20 pm
by miamipuck » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:48 pm
mervhage wrote:Miamipuck wrote:BTW I am Jewish
Say word?! That's funny that Miami and I get along great. We are hombres and we speak very often and don't disagree on anything. We are a constant source of moral support for each other, as both of us live very trying lives. What's funny is, the conflict is not between Arabs and Jews, it's between the fucking leaders!! Back in my music days, I wrote a dope-ass song detailing the whole thing. Unfortunately, we couldn't get it to the light of day and until now, I forgot about it.
Anyways, the point is, the media would have you believe that Arabs want to drive Israel into the sea. If my best friend thought that was true, he wouldn't be my friend. Our "leaders" lie to us and trick us into fighting for them, while they sit back and act like this is a fucking video game.
Miami, just so you know, I definitely feel that both sides (leaders) are full of shit. I'm sure I mentioned it in another post.
Qman, don't make BigD angry, you won't like him when he's angry!
I'd love to write a short essay, but I have exactly 45 minutes to watch High Stakes Poker on DVR, if I don't watch it now, I won't get to watch until Sunday.
Yes we are cool. One loon to another.
-
miamipuck - Whale Hunter
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:20 pm
71 posts • Page 4 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
