Middle East conflict...

[qingdaoman]

considering the huge loses to the Allies when trying to take over small islands from the Japanese and the complete lack of a sign that the Japanese were willing to surrender I think there is an argument for the dropping of the Nuclear bombs in 1945.

Curious that your response ignore my point:

Question -- If the U.S. had launched a massive invasion, attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the soldiers had been directed to slaughter every man, woman, boy, girl, or baby who they saw, regardless of whether or not they resisted...would you have justified such an attack using the argument you stated above?

If not, how does using a bomb to accomplish EXACTLY the same thing become justifiable? Because we're slaughtering them from a distance, instead of first-hand, it becomes acceptable? Only difference I can see is that using the bomb is more cowardly.

[mervhage]

Only difference I can see is that using the bomb is more cowardly.

The US is viewed as one of the 3 most cowardly countries in the world.

[qingdaoman]

The US is viewed as one of the 3 most cowardly countries in the world

Now, Merv, gonna' have to take you to task on that one...that is not a statement of fact, only of personal opinion. You may believe that very strongly; others do not.

There are many people in this world -- not just Americans -- who would say that nations that refuse to take any position, or get involved in any actions, are the most cowardly.

There are many people in this world -- not just Americans -- who would say that countries that support or sponsor terrorism are the most cowardly.

This is part of the problem I see with some of your arguments...you start off with items that are defensible, based more on logic and history...but then you quickly turn around to statements like this, which are purely personal opinion, based on your own personal definitions and biases. But you expect people to accept all of them with equal value.

I have many problems with Bush & Co. On the other hand, I consider the U.S. Bill of Rights to be one of the greatest documents ever penned by humans. And there are a great many Americans who are, at this very moment, fighting for the principles enshrined in that document. NOT people like Bush (although he'd like people to believe that's what he's doing), but those who oppose Bush...such as the recent Supreme Court ruling that the military trials of prisoners at Guantanemo Bay was illegal and unconstitutional. That was the result of AMERICANS fighting against Bush's abuse of power. And not at all cowardly.

And one final point -- I firmly believe that were ANY other nation to have the same power that the U.S. has, they would be equally likely to abuse that power. In fact, a great many nations would abuse that power far MORE than does the U.S. So it isn't so much an issue of anything "American". It is, again, an issue of basic human nature.

Give ANY nation overwhelming military power, and they will inevitably come to rely on and abuse that power. It is inescapable, unavoidable.

So any arguments about "moral superiority" are, in the end, based in many ways on "military inferiority". Other nations don't do what the U.S. does because they don't have the ABILITY to do so. Put them in the same position that the U.S. is in, and I have every confidence they'd do the same damn things the U.S. is doing. Quite possibly worse.

[mervhage]

I spent some time in Europe several years ago (and north africa) and my "opinion" is shared by a great deal of people whom I spoke with and met while over there. This was prior to "9/11". Back then, they had an extremely low opinion of americans, now, it's probably 1000 fold lower.

Besides, the US' actions speak for themself.

[qingdaoman]

Merv, I've travelled all over the world. As I told you, I spent time in relief operations at the end of the war in former Yugoslavia. I've lived for the past 13 years in China. I have contacts at over 20 different embassies in Beijing, and attend their functions regularly. I'd consider myself quite well-informed as to general world opinion.

Yes, there are a great many countries who dislike/distrust the U.S. gov't. I would be part of that group myself.

However, let me turn this question around. I could VERY EASILY find people in many, many countries all around the world who would say that Palestinians are cowards. They kill innocent women, and innocent children, using suicide bombs.

Now -- just because I can prove that many people BELIEVE this, and many people SAY this, does that mean that this is TRUE? Of course not -- as you would be the first to argue. But then you turn around and use EXACTLY the same illogical argument to support your own argument...many people say it, so it is true.

Merv, you are your own worst enemy in these debates. You DO have some good arguments, based on history and verifiable facts. But you then make the all-too-common mistake of claiming your own PERSONAL OPINIONS have equivalent status.

You said, "The US is viewed as one of the 3 most cowardly countries in the world". Well, that is true, as far as it goes...yes, SOME people do view it that way. But I could state with EQUAL TRUTHFULNESS that "The US is viewed as one of the 3 bravest countries in the world", and be able to find many people who would support that statement. It is a pointless argument, based on personal prejudice, not on reasoned logic.

[qingdaoman]

Eruu,

It is a documented, historical fact that there was debate about whether the bomb should be dropped in Europe, or in Japan. And the leaders at the time -- both American and British -- decided that it would be more "politically acceptable" (within their own countries) to bomb Asians than to bomb whites.

THAT was the reason for the selection of Japan. Had the bomb been dropped on Germany, it would have inevitably caused Japan's surrender, also.

But that is beside the point. You didn't answer my core question:

WOULD YOU DEFEND the U.S. military sending in an overwhelming force of soldiers with explicit instructions to kill every man, woman, or child that they encountered, regardless of whether they resisted, surrendered, etc.?

If so, how?

If not, how can you defend a decision to drop a bomb which accomplishes EXACTLY the same thing? Its okay to wipe them all out if we're not standing there ourselves?

A group of soldiers kills unarmed, defenseless civillians with a gun, and it is a war crime. A group of soldiers kills unarmed, defenseless civillians with a bomb, and it is fine. The logic evades me.

[qingdaoman]

Another fact about the decision to us use atomic bombs on Japan, to deal with those who claim it was a primarily military target (taken from Wikipedia)

Choice of targets

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect"

In other words, there was a SPECIFIC CHOICE made not to attack purely military targets -- which would have saved countless thousands of civillian lives. And it was a SPECIFIC CHOICE to target civillian centers...in fact, military targets were ignored BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A LARGE ENOUGH CIVILLIAN POPULATION SURROUNDING THEM. There was a very deliberate, conscious effort to target civillians.

Today, when someone deliberately attacks a civillian target in an attempt to demoralize or frighten their enemy, we call it terrorism.

On the other hand, if the deliberate targeting of civillian targets is allowable for the U.S., then it is allowable for other nations -- which makes the 9/11 attacks arguably justifiable.

I don't have much problem with the deliberate killing of soldiers in wartime. Its not nice, but it is a reality. And hey...those soldiers are there to kill others, anyway.

But DELIBERATELY targeting massive civillian targets with the express goal of intimidating your enemy's gov't/military is unjustifiable in ANY situation, in my opinion. ESPECIALLY in a nation that has as its foundation a document like the Bill of Rights.

[mervhage]

Six decades of Israeli oppression, occupation, their tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, state of the art weapons, dolphin submarines (or whatever they're called), nuclear weapons (they haven't used them yet, sure they'd love to), US support for everything they do (plus $4 billion in US aid annually), daily war crimes against civilians, checkpoint humiliations/beatings, violations of every UN resolution in their history, the new "security fence" (read more oppressive measures), destroying our way of life, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, has yet to destroy the will and determination of the Palestinians. We are far from cowards my friend.

[qingdaoman]

We are far from cowards my friend

I agree. So the argument that "because lots of people say Palestinians are cowards means they are cowards" is not a logical or defensible argument. Just as the argument that "because lots of people say Americans are cowards means they are cowards" is not a logical or defensible argument.

Stick to facts. You've got LOTS of good, historical facts to justify your arguments. But learn to differentiate between fact, and personal opinion. I will accept arguments based on facts, even if I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion. But arguments based on personal opinion are pointless...they are purely subjective. Its fine to tell people WHAT you believe, as a personal opinion...but don't try to preach personal beliefs as solid fact.

And I think you'll find a LOT less opposition to your arguments -- and a lot more willingness of others to listen -- if you try this approach.

[mervhage]

You kinda confused me in the beginning. I also didn't mean to imply that americans are cowards, however, the gov't on the other hand... well we definitely see to eye to eye on that.

[qingdaoman]

Eruu,

Ah, okay, gotcha'!

So, let me summarize your argument:

If a group of soldiers faces their enemy directly, on the ground, face-to-face, and deliberately attacks and kills unarmed civillians, including children and babies, that is wrong.

But, if a soldier never goes anywhere near their enemy, and instead hides away at a distance, facing no personal threat, and deliberately attacks and kills unarmed civillians, including children and babies, that is okay.

Now, you and I seem to have rather different definitions of military duty here. Because in my book, the most important role of a soldier is to safeguard civillian lives, even at the risk of their own life. And in that regard, I hold all humans to be equal. In fact, I seem to recall the Bill of Rights as saying something to that effect. Nowhere does it specify "Americans only".

Again, let's turn this argument around. Let's say that Japan or Germany had gotten the bomb first. And they had dropped an atom bomb on Los Angeles. Or Washington. DELIBERATELY targeting civillian targets so as to inflict maximum psychological damage, and force the surrender of Allied forces, and at the same time preventing any further loss of their own soldiers...

...do you think that you would be sitting here today, arguing that those attacks were perfectly justified? Or, if someone today did the SAME THING to the U.S., would you argue that the deliberate slaughter of American civillians was okay because it saved the lives of foreign soldiers?

Or is it, again, a case that American lives have a higher value than the lives of those in other nations?

[bigdil511]

Eruu,

Ah, okay, gotcha'!

So, let me summarize your argument:

If a group of soldiers faces their enemy directly, on the ground, face-to-face, and deliberately attacks and kills unarmed civillians, including children and babies, that is wrong.

But, if a soldier never goes anywhere near their enemy, and instead hides away at a distance, facing no personal threat, and deliberately attacks and kills unarmed civillians, including children and babies, that is okay.

Dude for the most part I agree with a lot of things you say, but you are making no sense. The whole point is to AVOID CASUALTIES ON YOUR SIDE, AND INFLICT CASUALTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE, which was the point in dropping the bomb. It might not be the shining hour for our country, but lets not be too judgemental because you simply weren't there. All of my elder family members were in Europe, and Japan, and they said the Japanese were relentless even after the war was "officially over". Its hard for me to say because obviously the point of dropping such a devastating bomb on a group of people just doesn't sit right with me period. I don't agree with it, I don't like it, and you seem to think that the people loved it, that they toasted that success with beers and champagne afterwards. If you remember we were dealing with a group of people that were very evil (IE the Nazis), how are we supposed to know if the people (IE Japanese) who are on the same side of the war as the Germans, wouldn't do the same thing they do? If they support evil, fight with evil people, should we assume that they aren't capable of evil? Either way I don't have the answers for you but don't accuse Merv of stating personal opinion as fact when you are doing the same thing.

[qingdaoman]

BigDil,

Thanks for the response...however, I think that my argument is quite logical and consistent.

If you argue that it is acceptable for soldiers to deliberately murder civillians -- unarmed women, children, and babies -- by shooting them down in direct conflict, then it is also consistent to argue that it is acceptable to do the same thing by dropping a nuke on them.

But if you argue that for a soldier to take such an action is wrong -- and quite frankly, I know of few people who would defend a soldier deliberately shooting babies just to try to terrorize the populace into surrendering -- then I fail to see how you can argue that using a nuke to accomplish exactly the same thing is acceptable.

If you argue that it is acceptable for foreign armies to use nukes on American civillian populations in order to prevent loss of their own soldiers, then it is also consistent to argue that it is acceptable to do the same thing to Japan.

But, again, I doubt that many Americans who defend dropping an atomic bomb on Japan would turn around and defend dropping a similar weapon on an American civillian target. In fact, I suspect that a foreign power who deliberately used a WMD on an American civillian population would be instantly branded a terrorist.

My problem isn't specifically with the argument itself; it is the lack of consistency. Killing foreign defenseless children and babies in order to prevent American military casualties is acceptable; but killing defenseless American children and babies to prevent casualties of foreign soldiers would never be tolerated.

If I have mistakenly mischaracterized the beliefs of those who are defending the use of atomic weapons on Japan, and you do in fact believe that it is acceptable for a soldier to gun down defenseless children and babies, then I apologize, you are quite consistent in your belief that dropping an atomic weapon on them is justified.

If I have mistakenly mischaracterized the beliefs of those who are defending the use of atomic weapons on Japan, and you do in fact believe that it is acceptable for other nations to deliberately target American civillians in order to prevent foreign casualties, then I apologize, you are quite consistent in your belief that dropping an atomic weapon on Japan is justified.

The whole point is to AVOID CASUALTIES ON YOUR SIDE, AND INFLICT CASUALTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE

Then the 9/11 attacks were a brilliantly successful attack, killing literally thousands of Americans at the cost of less than 20 enemy lives. They should not be condemned as terrorists, they should be praised as brilliant strategic geniuses.

I agree with you up to a point -- The whole point is to AVOID MILITARY CASUALTIES ON YOUR SIDE, AND INFLICT MILITARY CASUALTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE

But an army that thinks that the deliberate slaughter of children and babies is a legitimate military tactic...I have big problems with that. And I suspect that if it was YOUR children and babies being targeted in this manner, you'd be a hell of a less willing to defend such tactics.

[bigdil511]

BigDil,

Thanks for the response...however, I think that my argument is quite logical and consistent.

If you argue that it is acceptable for soldiers to deliberately murder civillians -- unarmed women, children, and babies -- by shooting them down in direct conflict, then it is also consistent to argue that it is acceptable to do the same thing by dropping a nuke on them.

But if you argue that for a soldier to take such an action is wrong -- and quite frankly, I know of few people who would defend a soldier deliberately shooting babies just to try to terrorize the populace into surrendering -- then I fail to see how you can argue that using a nuke to accomplish exactly the same thing is acceptable.

If you argue that it is acceptable for foreign armies to use nukes on American civillian populations in order to prevent loss of their own soldiers, then it is also consistent to argue that it is acceptable to do the same thing to Japan.

But, again, I doubt that many Americans who defend dropping an atomic bomb on Japan would turn around and defend dropping a similar weapon on an American civillian target. In fact, I suspect that a foreign power who deliberately used a WMD on an American civillian population would be instantly branded a terrorist.

My problem isn't specifically with the argument itself; it is the lack of consistency. Killing foreign defenseless children and babies in order to prevent American military casualties is acceptable; but killing defenseless American children and babies to prevent casualties of foreign soldiers would never be tolerated.

If I have mistakenly mischaracterized the beliefs of those who are defending the use of atomic weapons on Japan, and you do in fact believe that it is acceptable for a soldier to gun down defenseless children and babies, then I apologize, you are quite consistent in your belief that dropping an atomic weapon on them is justified.

If I have mistakenly mischaracterized the beliefs of those who are defending the use of atomic weapons on Japan, and you do in fact believe that it is acceptable for other nations to deliberately target American civillians in order to prevent foreign casualties, then I apologize, you are quite consistent in your belief that dropping an atomic weapon on Japan is justified.

The whole point is to AVOID CASUALTIES ON YOUR SIDE, AND INFLICT CASUALTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE

Then the 9/11 attacks were a brilliantly successful attack, killing literally thousands of Americans at the cost of less than 20 enemy lives. They should not be condemned as terrorists, they should be praised as brilliant strategic geniuses.

I agree with you up to a point -- The whole point is to AVOID MILITARY CASUALTIES ON YOUR SIDE, AND INFLICT MILITARY CASUALTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE

But an army that thinks that the deliberate slaughter of children and babies is a legitimate military tactic...I have big problems with that. And I suspect that if it was YOUR children and babies being targeted in this manner, you'd be a hell of a less willing to defend such tactics.

Its obvious to me you missed the whole fucking point. You are preaching at me like everything you say is fact, when I remember you telling someone else that they shouldn't do that, namely Merv. Also don't speak about my kids ever in your fucking life, you have no right whatsoever.

Also you simply don't understand at all, you are too blinded by what you want to see. I SAID DISTINCTLY THAT I DONT BELIEVE IT WAS THE RIGHT TIHNG DO DO. I also stated to the effect that I don't have the answers, all I do is listen and ask questions, and point out things that you might not see (b/c you are obviously blinded by your own opinions).

You don't want to be preached to, but thats all you have been doing, stating your opinion as fact. My opinion is not fact, I know it, this was a demonstration in selective listening, you saw what you wanted to see, and took from it what you wanted to, and completely ignored the whole point. It was not an argument for or against anything, it was simply to show you that you don't have all the answers, and you seem to think that nobody elses opinion is valid except yours. (Also I am silently waiting for your arrogant response, missing the whole point to my post again).

[qingdaoman]

P.S. -- the whole "but look at all the bad things they did" argument doesn't hold water with me. It is nothing more than a red herring argument.

From the U.S. Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

I am not myself American (I'm Canadian), but I believe wholeheartedly -- in fact fanatically -- in the principles enshrined in that simple statement. Note that it nowhere says all Americans are created equal. It applies to all people, of all nationalities, races, genders, religions, etc.

So, to take it back again to my main question -- if the very same thing were done to American civillians, and you saw American children and babies (among others) deliberately targeted in a WMD attack, simply so that the enemy could "protect some of their soldiers from danger", how quick would you be to defend that?

I believe an army that fights for a nation with such amazing principles should be dedicated to nothing more fervently than the principle of equality. Which means that they would not do anything to a foreign population which they would not tolerate or accept being done to their own population.

We accept that foreign soldiers attacking American soldiers is an unhappy but necessary reality. Thus, American soldiers attacking foreign soldiers is also an unhappy but necessary reality.

I don't see many American arguing that deliberately slaughtering American civillians is likewise an acceptable or defensible strategy. They certainly didn't say so during 9/11. So I fail to see how they can argue that it is an acceptable or defensible strategy to use against others.