posted
Well, if we are going to tackle this, let it be it's own post.
Japan Japan Japan
I once heard a question that has caused me much serious reflection from that time forth.
"Why is America worried about other countries using the A-bomb when, to date, they are the only country in the world who has used it on civilians?"
I have also heard an American Officer of high rank (at my rinky-dink state college) say that wars are not won until you take it to the civilians. I believe him.
Japan first: Why did we do it? Almost as important as the answer to that question is America's willingness to ASK the question. Think about it.
The theory that makes most sense to me is because we wanted to send a message to Russia. The war was over, Japan was collapsing, and we had our marines ready to invade...BUT... we knew what was going on in Russia and could not afford a new war. Pretty powerful message that started the cold war.
Japan was already establishing democratic movements and the population was ready for a change. That is why after the war they embraced Democracy. Japan got in the war, not for racial ideological reasons like Germany, but because the government KNEW that Western Culture was spreading among it's civilians and they wanted to stamp it out on America's turff....but I digress...this is an ongoing debate, I just told the side I believe.
But there was death. Lots of it. People are willing to kill. How? By disassociation--stamping out empathy. You think anyone could look the people in the eyes, understand the value of life, be emotionally connected and STILL drop the bomb? Only a cold-hearted serial killer could, and there has been enough research to show that serial killers lack empathy.
What was evil about what happened in Spain? We must first look at how they were able to stamp out emotional connections to the victims.
Back to War...IF wars are won by taking it to the civilians, THEN how are terrorists different then us?
That is the question I want to pose. Here is a good place to discuss it. Is 9-11 different then the A-bomb? Is the difference between a terrorist and justified military action defined by who struck first?
There is only ONE exception on how to win a war I can think of...The Iraq War. America is the only country I can think of that was willing to spend so much effort to minimize collateral damage--a far cry from Dresded (which killed more people then both atomic bombs combined).
What are your thoughts on the difference bewteen "us" (any free democratic society) and "them" (terrorists).
I think the willingness to discuss this issue itself sheds light on the answer.
ALTHO I FEEL A DIFFERENCE I CATAGORICALLY STAND BY THAT IT IS **NOT** BECAUSE THEY TARGET CIVILIANS.
Any takers?
my first thought is by not looking at the atrocities as an isolated event, but look at the evolution of ideas, culture, value of humn life, and individual rights. Yeah, America had slaves, killed indians, bombed Dresden, "fill in the blank", but where are we today and hwo did we get there?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally have always felt that there is very little distinction.
I saw the 9/11 attacks as a brilliant military strike on both our moral and our economy.
The objections to this are twofold:
1. They targeted civilians! Yeah they did. So what? Military strikes have always been justified if they damaged the ability of their opponents to wage war. Hurting our economy is more than enough justification.
2. They aren't part of any nation! Well, yeah, but neither was the United States before they fought for it. I don't see how this makes any difference.
Now this doesn't mean I am apoligizing for the terrorists, in fact, I think that I am a more determined enemy to them because I recognize them for who they are. They aren't "evil-doers". They are people who believe strongly in something and are willing to do whatever it takes to get it. That doesn't mean we should let them have it, but it does no good to label them as evil and treat them as monsters.
They are the enemy, but that doesn't make them evil.
[ March 11, 2004, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Ghost of Xavier ]
Posts: 80 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
If you think that Japan was becoming more democratic before and during WWII then you do not know history.
Ending the war they was the US did it served several goals. It is very likely that it saved not only tens of thousands of American lives, it also likely saved as many if not more Japaness lives. It also may have very well shown Russia not to mess with us, but that would have been a good thing.
2nd, I can not believe that someone just said that terrorist are not evil.
"They are the enemy, but that doesn't make them evil."
I agree, we need to look at them as briliant strategest and not just evil people, However, do you believe in the presence of evil on this earth and how would you define it?
If they are not evil, is there ideology evil? Methods are methods, but what about objectives. I feel there is evil at play and evil at work.
My favorite line is Crime and Punishment is ..well, I will put all three translations I have read from different publishers.
"When reason fails, the devil helps."
"When the mind stops working, the devil lends a hand."
"When the mind stops working, the devil gives aid."
There is something about the terrorists ultimate objectives that feels evil to me, of course, I think we need a community definition of "evil" and a community understanding of terrorist's "objectives."
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I am feel dissapointed that I am at work and not at home, but trust me...I will be at home soon.
Why does that matter? Because at home lies all the documentation (including names, dates, key players, social movements, government reaction and a whole list of doctorate papers discussing how those movements BEFORE WWII are afecting Japanese history then and today) ready for me to give you as ample references to support my claim.
And I WILL get it for you. But I must say that I am highly amused by: "If you think that Japan was becoming more democratic before and during WWII then you do not know history."
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah you did hear me right m^2. I hope you aren't shutting your brain off to the rest of the things I said because of that opinion though.
Do you really think that everyone who commits a terrorist act is evil? Thats utter and complete BS. They may be brainwashed, they may be doing horrible horrible things, but why are they evil?
Try for one second to think of why they do what they do. Is it for the sake of killing others like serial killers? No, they are doing it to advance a cause they believe in with all their hearts.
Are they wrong? Most certainly. Should we try to root them out and take away their capability to strike again? Of course.
Are they evil? Maybe some, but certainly not all.
[ March 11, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Ghost of Xavier ]
Posts: 80 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Even before Pearl Harbor, Japan had been quite ruthlessly conquering parts of the Asian mainland. It seems far more likely to me that this was imperialist expansion than out of a desire to squash Westernizing influences.
My grandmother, being Japanese, was in Japan during the war. According to her, the Japanese people had no idea that they were losing the war. Furthermore, they had been told that any invading American troops would torture, rape, and/or kill anyone they came across. You have to understand that surrender was not a part of that culture. The projections for island-to-island, cave-to-cave fighting in order to conventionally defeat Japan showed staggering amounts of losses of both Japanese and American soldiers. That's what happens when you have an army, and to some extent, a civilian population, that is willing to die to a man. Dropping the bomb ended the war far sooner and with less loss of life than conventional warfare would have.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Terrorists are not evil. Terrorism can be justified (at least to the extent that any killing can ever be justified). 9/11 and the atomic bomb attack on Japan are both acts of terrorism, in one form or another, because both were deliberate killings of civilians in an attempt to frighten the enemy into submission. 9/11 was unjustified, however, and the atomic bombing of Japan was justified.
The distinction between the two is not a matter of Americans being good and Al Qaeda being evil. The distinction is a matter of judgement. I believe that in some cases the ends justify the means and in some (most) cases they do not - and the difference is a matter of judgement. I think we correctly judged that the after-effects of killing Japanese civilians during WWII was worth what we did, but that al Qaeda was mistaken in thinking their goal in the 9/11 attacks was worth what they did.
WWII America made a better judgement call than Al Qaeda. That is the difference, and it's a difference in wisdom, not a matter of good souls vs. evil souls.
In the Spain case, I think the separatist movement is even LESS of a just cause than Al Qaeda's. They may have thought that it was worth the deaths of those innocents, but I think it was not.
During the island-hopping campaign to push back the Japanese Empire (Co-Prosperity Sphere, whatever), US and Allied Forces had been constantly fighting defenders who had a total disregard for their own lives. The dug-in defenders would fight and scrape for every inch of ground. When it would look desperate, they would mount up a Banzai charge and literally throw a human wave against the Americans.
We suffered heavy casualties. The Japanese defenders usually fought to the last man or close enough for practical purposes.
And these were for podunk little nothing islands. It was troubling, it was bleeding our forces, but the defenses were all for naught. And then we got to Okinawa, our first taste of the Japanese on their own home turf.
There weren't many civilian levies among the Japanese troops, most men who could hold a rifle were already in uniform. Our soldiers waded ashore and into the bloodiest fighting of the war.
Japanese hold-outs in caves would rather be burned by flamethrowers than surrender, even after Japanese-speaking Nisei volunteers in the US Army offered them the most generous of surrender terms. Banzai charges, snipers, booby traps and tunnel complexes were the order of the day for the defenders.
And as the Americans fought through it, the civilian population of Okinawa began doing what it thoughted it needed to do. In the end, hundreds if not more than a thousand killed themselves. I can still remember seeing the footage of a terrified woman in a kimono standing at a cliff's edge, her children clutching at her waist. A cameraman kept his lense on them as an American interpreter pleaded with them. And then the woman pushed her children off the cliff. She looked around, terror in her eyes and jumped off after them.
On the main islands of Japan, children were being given bamboo spears and being taught how to fight the American invaders. Every firearm available was passed out to the public. A call was made to the world that Japan would fight to the last member of its population.
Their recent actions echoed it.
In the Oval Office, Pres. Harry S Truman weighed the use of the "ultimate weapon" against his own fears. He looked at the Japanese threats and the evidence that they would back those words up with the blood of their own citizens. He looked at the casualties American forces had suffered so far in the Pacific. He looked at the casualties the Americans had suffered in Europe and the process of rebuilding that needed to begin there.
Lastly he looked at the Pentagon estimates that said the US could suffer a million casualties or more.
That's when he decided to use the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima. A city was obliterated. The Japanese sent out a tenative request to talk, but did not say anything about surrender. Nagasaki followed because no argument or waffling could be brooked once the genie had been let out of the bottle. After Nagasaki, the Japanese capitulated totally and irrevocably.
Only in the minds of revisionists or speculators were the bombs dropped to warn the Russians off. Russia, staggering from their own losses in the European war (more Soviets died at Axis hands than Jews in the Holocaust, and even more at the hands of Stalin). They were not an immediate threat.
I'm sure the force of those bombs was felt in the Kremlin, however, but to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed as a message is disingenuous and dangerous.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
was that last point directed at me? I hope not, as I see your position, I was talking about the possibility of evil ideas--that thought intiruigs me.
Teshi
Just because no one has claimed responsibility YET doesn't mean that whoever planned this did not have motive beyond death.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
msquared, what ratio of civilian lives wasted vs. military lives saved would you consider worth the cost?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, sorry Alexa, hadn't considered your questions enough to answer them yet. I will now though.
quote: However, do you believe in the presence of evil on this earth and how would you define it?
Gosh, thats really hard for me to say. I think that I do believe in evil, but that it is an incredibly rare thing. Most everyone who ever lived does what they think is right. Even most child molesters and serial murderers have some sort of psychological problem which drive them to do what they do. I would say without question though that their actions are evil.
quote:If they are not evil, is there ideology evil? Methods are methods, but what about objectives. I feel there is evil at play and evil at work.
Well I do think their methods are indeed evil, but driven by motives which are not. Their ideology in general? Not so sure. I think that the destruction of israel goal is definitely evil. Getting US support away from the Saudi monarchy is not however.
But I think I need to jump in here and say that these opinions are by no means final. For some reason adding "Ghost of" before my name makes it a lot easier to say my opinions, no matter how much I am not sure about them .
Posts: 80 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I would like to say Alexa, that I think that you are one of my favorite Newbies of all time . Love reading your posts. You seem more opened minded to new opinions than just about anyone.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Ending the war they was the US did it served several goals. It is very likely that it saved not only tens of thousands of American lives, it also likely saved as many if not more Japaness lives."
The actual historical projection were more like 1 million plus. And that was just Allied soldiers. That dosn't include the incalcuable number of Japanese soldier and civilians that would have fought to the bitter end when the invasion would come.
Although revisionist history tries to to deabte the argument today, I have no doubts that the bomb was used to SAVE lifes in the long run. It was simply a matter of mathmatics.
As for your suposed documantation stating that clearly there were democratic ideals in Japan at the end of the war I say so what? Just because there were some Americans in the early part of this century who openly beleived that communism was the way US society should develope dosn't mean that we were an emerging coumunist state, (btw I was recently facinated to know that Helen Keller was a very out-spoken activist for american communism! Who knew? ) The fact is that the Japanese society was under control of it's military. They were not going to surrender and there is an abundance of evidence support THIS. (Why do you think it took 2 of them anyhow?) The bomb ended the war and killed the fewest people in the process. I am not ashamed of government for doing so. I am proud of them. It was a horrible war on many accounts and the whole thing is regretable, but after all, we didn't exactly start it either. We just finished it.
Wish I could type faster! Sopwith made the same point above Much more completly too.
posted
Tom, I know you weren't talking to me, but I think that in Japan it wasn't just a question of civilian lives wasted vs. soldiers' lives saved. It was also a question of civilian lives saved. There's plenty of reason to think that if the Japanese government had not surrendered that the loss of civilian life would have been grievous.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't know,but I would weight it in favor of my side. Something like this.
Conventional War: Our dead/wounded: 30,000 Their dead/wounded(civ and mil.) 50,000
Nukes: Our dead/wounded: 0 Their dead wounded(civ and mil.) 20,000
The above makes the choice obvious.
Please note that I am not saying that these are the numbers involved with Japan. But the idea that thousands of Japanesse were going to die, no matter how the war was going to end is the point. The question is how many Americans were going to die.
When you say I was wrong, I assume you mean that I understated my numbers, not that I was wrong in the idea. I have understated my numbers becuase I do not have the hard numbers at my hand.
Like I said, the debate goes on, I only stated my position, as you did yours. Quick references to check tho....
IN 1919 "minponshugi" was the name of a powerful democratic movement in Japan. Minponshugis was at odds with "Penoism" which states that the center of the universe is the emperor (hence the Japanese flag)
Some leading Japanese Philosophers that pushed the movement for democracy before WWII are Sakuzo Yoshino and Chomin Nakae.
So, yes, I do have historical precidence to say there was a push for democracy in Japan that threatened the established peno doctrine.
As far as IF it saved lives..that is an active debate, and I guess we can debate it here, but the point was to show that killing is not always evil, so, how do we define terrorist killing from our own? There have been some good posts already I will address after I have time to think it over.
Sopwith, it is not revisionism that our motive to drop the bomb had to do with Russia, it only feels that way because people in America are beginning to see the possibility---But trust me, that is not a new idea in either Japan or Russia.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, I'm not arguing that it wasn't necessary. I'm arguing that, as necessary an evil it may have been, it was still evil.
I mean, if we're working purely on utilitarian hypotheticals, you can come up with perfectly good arguments for terrorism. What if, for example, the government was executing tens of thousands of people yearly for no good reason, and the population simply wouldn't snap out of their apathy -- but by blowing up a train station, you could somehow prove the government's complicity in this injustice to the world, even if it meant that a couple of hundred civilians would die?
Russia may have been a side reason, but to contrue what Russia and Japan thought were our reasons, over what our leaders stated reasons were, is grasping.
Your original statement implied that a democratic revolution was impending in Japan. A movement 20 years before the war started is hardly a forceful movement.
quote:If you can kill one innocent to save four, is that "good?" What about a hundred?
For the sake of argument, are the decisions involved in the following two pairs of scenarios the same or different? Are the scenarios themselves the same or different?
Scenario 1a: Persons A, B, and C, all innocents, die. Scenario 1b: Person A dies, but Persons B and C live.
Scenario 2a: Person D, an innocent, lives, but Persons E, F, and G, also innocents, die. Scenario 2b: Person D dies, but Persons E, F, and G live.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I don't beleive that question is not relevent when you look at it from the context of the times. The Japanese military deliberately targeted and abused civilians. Ever hear of the rape of Nanking? not to argue that 2 wrongs make a right...but when that is the perspective that five years of war can create in a society.
Again, I truely believe that not haveing to invade the home islands save not just Allied military but Japanese civilian lives aswell! The Japanese people truly believed we would kill and tortue every last one of them. Their government lied to them to get them to sacrifice their lives resisting the Allies. Heck, there is documented evidence that they would hurl themselves and their children off cliffs onto sea rocks when we occupied the island of Okinawa (sp?)
So it wasn't a question of just civilian lives vs. our military but estimated million plus of soldiers and civilian vs. a hundred thousand. Not happy choice but war is like that.
msquared: I am a bit of a history buff, as you might have guessed. I have heard several estimates of the projected casualties, the average to me seems to be as high as one million US soldiers. So yeah I was just disagreeing with your numbers, not your claim
Apologies to all for my typos, as I relaize I don't type that well, but am trying to keep up.
posted
I do want an answer to my previous question, Tom, but here's another one: is killing really killing? If an armed person is coming at me with the intention of killing me, is killing him first evil? What if this hypothetical person has also stated that after killing me, he will also kill my family? I suppose you could argue that you always have some alternative to killing, like running away or trying to otherwise restrain your assailant, but what if those options are not possible? Would avoiding the killing at the expense of your own life and that of your family be less evil? Or are good people sometimes just required to do evil things and there's no two ways about it?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I just tried to place the decision to kill with the bomb in the context of the times. Dropping the bomb was not wrong when considering the consequences of invasion. Killing is wrong except when you kill to save lives. I submit that the bomb did so.
posted
Alexa, you are right there were fledgling Democratic movements in Japan prior to WWII. I do believe that you are painting them as having a larger role than they actually had, though. College professors will often attribute a minor movement with more emphasis than it really had in their desire to meet their disertation requirements and to strike a pose of originality in a field as well-trod as the history of the 20th Century.
The movements you speak of had about as much political clout as the American Bund, a contemporary that espoused facism in America. Speaking of fascism, though, I think you may have missed the point on how facists came to power throughout the Axis. In each case, the first movements of democracy in the countries led to facism.
But first, one has to understand one intrinsic part of fascism that seems lost on today's generation. Fascists don't wrest power from the people, instead they derive their power from the people.
The Fasces (a bundle of sticks tied around an axe) was the symbol of the Roman Empire. It symbolized the power granted to the Senate and then the Emperors from the citizens of the Empire. Carried in parades and in any procession, it was a symbol to the people from the government that they were acting with your approval, with your power, to tackle the problems you had.
Remember that Hitler was elected to a position of power by the people of Germany in the depths of their terrible economic depression. He rose to ultimate power with the von Hindenberg's resignation and he rose to the cheers of the German populace.
In Japan, Tojo did the same, bolstered by the populace's belief in their superiority and need to become major players on the world's stage. The Japanese facists whipped up the images to the point where almost every Japanese man could see himself in the station of a samurai just as the Nazis used Wagner's images and the idea of the Aryans as cultural ideals.
After the war was said and done, few were the people in Japan who could shame themselves enough to say they had supported the fascists, and yet they had done just that. In Germany, one could search and never find anyone who had been a Nazi, but only those who claimed to have been Germans.
In the case of both populations, they were only able to give up their fascist ideals when their whole society and civilization had been torn down around their very ears. Once that had been destroyed and the myths had been washed from their eyes could they look on themselves in shame and understand what they had done. Like showing a newly thin person a picture of themself when they were fat, they couldn't bear to see what they had once been... they just turned their heads and said, "That's not me."
We've allowed them to hide that shame and their own evil marks on history. To a degree that is a good thing and very much a necessity for the world to have mended itself after that horrid conflict.
But by the same, we shouldn't revise the real history and say "They had some democratic aspirations, they weren't all that bad." Yes, they were that bad and worse. We can let them hide their shame, but when we rewrite history to help them feel better, we offer them a chance to forget the difficult lesson learned. Once all have been allowed to cleanse their souls by a false ablution, then they no longer fear becoming again what they once were.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
What are your thoughts on the difference between "us" (any free democratic society) and "them" (terrorists).
1. Terrorists don't stick around to rebuild.
2. Terrorists don't sign treaties after their demands are met. You can't surrender to a terrorist because he doesn't have a face or a name.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Japanese people truly believed we would kill and tortue every last one of them. Their government lied to them to get them to sacrifice their lives resisting the Allies.
Was it a lie or merely an intelligence failure? Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Was it a lie or merely an intelligence failure? [Wink] "
Does it matter? It wasn't true. It was useful propoganda deseminated (sp?) by a desperate regime that realized it days were probably numbered.
Wonder what lies the Hussien regime spread about the US prior to it's folding that are still creating some difficulties over there?
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Or are good people sometimes just required to do evil things and there's no two ways about it?"
Yep. That's the way I look at it.
Killing someone who's threatened to kill your family is still evil -- but it may also be necessary. That's why I'm not a big fan of calling something "good" or "evil" in the first place; the simple fact is that the only way to live a perfectly good life is to be pretty much omniscient, and therefore able to arrange things so that you're never forced into situations where the best decision is the evil one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well that's if you choose to define evil as something you can attribute to an action itself - out of context. I don't choose to use that definition. For something to meet my definition of evil, intent and situational circumstances also have to be taken into account.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so then what about the Sept. 11th attacks defines them as Evil? Can the hijackers motivations be judged evil independently of the actions or results?
Was their apparent motivation, to send a message to the US about meddling in their affairs, evil? Or just the action of cowardly killing thousands of innocent people?
edit: This is not a defence of their misguided and terrible actions, rather these are thoughts I am seeking to reconsile. (sp?)
posted
My Dad once explained to me that Devil's greatest coup was on the day he convinced everyone he didn't exist.
And yup, that's the way Evil (with the big E) works. When we forget that it exists, it thrives in the absence of our vigilence.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For something to meet my definition of evil, intent and situational circumstances also have to be taken into account."
The problem here, of course, is that almost no one commits an evil act without first justifying it to themselves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think you can judge motivations indepent of actions, but not vice versa.
So, if, as you say, the terrorists intent was to send a message to the US about meddling, that isn't necessarily evil. However, I don't believe that was there whole intent. It seems to me their motivations are more along the lines of "We must make war on America and the west because they stand in the way of our goal of spreading our version of Islam throughout the whole world." That I would consider evil.
As for the outcome, well, yeah, it's definitely evil because you've gotta have something pretty big to justify killing 3000 civilians, and, in my jusdgement, they didn't have anything close to enough.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem here, of course, is that almost no one commits an evil act without first justifying it to themselves.
Well, then we're really just arguing about semantics. You say an evil act is an evil act, but it's okay if it's necessary. I say that if it's necessary then it's not evil. But if it's okay, then it's not really evil, is it?
And yes, people will always have different definitions of what constitutes evil. You're not going to solve that problem until you install a hive-mind in everybody. That doesn't mean that I have to accept someone else's justification over my own judgement.
posted
Please keep in mind that the Japanese initiated the indiscriminate killing of civilians.
The rape of Nanking alone killed between 150,000 to 300,000 civilians.
quote:The soldiers also used bayonets, machine guns, live burial and fire. Decapitation was popular, evidenced by dozens of photographs in James Yin Shi Young's The Rape of Nanking (Innovative Publishing Group, 1996). Chinese heads were fed to the dogs. Women were raped, forced to perform bizarre sexual acts, then killed. Fathers were forced to rape their daughters, and sons, their mothers. Chinese men were forced to rape corpses. Competitions took place among Japanese soldiers to see how many Chinese they could kill in one day.
Even today many Japanese people still hold on to the belief that the rape of Nanking was a "hoax".
quote:Some Japanese nationalist scholars and conservative lawmakers say the figures are inflated; some even call the entire massacre a hoax.... In 1994, then-Justice Minister Shigeto Nagano had to resign after calling the Rape of Nanking a "fabrication."
posted
"Even today many Japanese people still hold on to the belief that the rape of Nanking was a "hoax"."
Interesting that many neo-nazi faction in the US claim that the Nazi Holocaust of Jews was a hoax as well. Revisionist history in it's extreme...
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I saw the 9/11 attacks as a brilliant military strike on both our moral and our economy.
Personally, I think this is accurate-with some qualifications. Al Qaeda is at war, not just with America, but essentially everyone who does not subscribe to their own beliefs. They're attacking the West and America in particular now (and it's likely they're behind the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than America is in the Persian Gulf War II, also) because we're their biggest enemies and threats. But make no mistake, they're at war with everyone who doesn't believe and act according to their whims.
quote:Yeah they did. So what? Military strikes have always been justified if they damaged the ability of their opponents to wage war. Hurting our economy is more than enough justification.
Then first it should be said that their attack was a miserable failure. 09-11-01, more than anything since Pearl Harbor, increased our ability and willingness to wage war. Afghanistan and Iraq would almost certainly not have Americans running their government without it. Second, the objective of the attack was not to damage our ability to wage war. Al Qaeda is evil-I'll get to that later*-but not stupid. I cannot believe they would think this would in any way impact our military effectiveness.
No, their motive was to strike at our will to fight and to cripple the American government and its populace's willingness to fight. A computer virus could've gone after the economy, were that their primary goal. So no, it wasn't exactly a military strike because it achieved no real military strategic objective. What such objective did their attack achieve, exactly? What such objective could it be reasonably expected to have accomplished?
Just because military attacks will sometimes kill civilians or damage civlian infrastructure does not mean that an attack targetted exclusively on civilians and civilian infrastructure is a military attack.
quote:Well, yeah, but neither was the United States before they fought for it. I don't see how this makes any difference.
I agree. Of course, I also agree with this when I hear people complaining about how we can't declare war on Al Qaeda. Maybe we don't have a legal framework for declaring national war on a non-national organization, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't.
quote:They aren't "evil-doers". They are people who believe strongly in something and are willing to do whatever it takes to get it. That doesn't mean we should let them have it, but it does no good to label them as evil and treat them as monsters.
* Such a level of ruthlessness is, to me, the very definition of evil. The ends to which their means are aimed is another part of it. Al Qaeda's ends are the overthrow of Western civilization and the ascendancy of the most militant fundamentalist "Islam". (I say it with quotes because their definition is a perversion of that religion.) Their means? Targetting and murdering civilians in as bloody, numerous, public, and efficient means as possible while causing the maximum of fear and damage to civilian targets.
Even in Iraq where there are thousands of legitimate military targets, who are they also attacking? Policeman and civilians, Allies and Iraqi alike.
quote:They are the enemy, but that doesn't make them evil.
Quite true, but the things I've said do. Just because you eschew the term doesn't make you more rational and level-headed in thinking of how to deal with them. It's just semantics. I too believe they are willing to do anything to achieve their evil goals (just because they think they're good goals don't make it so, anymore than my calling them evil makes them so).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Kamisaki...Evil has to be taken into context.
I do not believe Harry S. Truman was Evil. Evil, in my mind must have INTENT, otherwise it is unfortunate, it is a waste, it is miscommunication or not having all the available facts, but I contend it is not evil.
Since I believe our president was NOT evil, nor were there evil influences manipulating his decision, I can not call the use of the atomic bomb evil.
What dropping the atomic bomb accomplished was establish another setting and precedent that justified killing civilians in war with yet another weapon..a WMD to boot.
I don't think saving lives is a compelling argument, because once you use a weapon, chances are it will be used again. And who today doubts that another nuclear attack somewhere WILL happen? We set the precedent.
Now..was using the A-Bomb wrong? I don't think so. The world was changing and tough choices needed to be made, and I am grateful Truman made that choice. I still maintain that a bigger part of his decision was with Russia. He new what we would face with Stalin. I don't think it is wrong or Anti-American to suppose that Russia was the influence.
Many factors had to be considered to make such a large decision--and Russia [IMRAO (in my research and opinion)]was a key factor.
Japan did not have a minor democratic movement involving a few intellectuals. It was a major movement that threatened the class system of the day with the Emperor in the middle. I am not saying the movement alone is why Japan entered the war, but it was a major reason. Does anyone really think Japan thought they could acquire more land by attacking us?
But if you disagree, that is fine. Here is an example of an impasse in a discussion, so moving on...
We set the precedent for using WMD. SO, if a terrorist attacks us (say killing 3,000 civilians), what is morally different? I don't buy the argument that we were at war with Japan. If that is the only defense of the use of the A-bomb, then terrorism is nothing more then killing with a first attack and retaliation with a WMD is fine.
Calling terrorists evil seems like name-calling to me, they are smarter then that. But we must understand if there is an evil influence. So, before we can do that, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EVIL?
To me, evil is intentionally taking away the consent of someone. If fear and death is used to topple a government so people suffer or so you can usurp their rights, then I see that as evil and terrorism.
But that leaves out McVeigh. Was he evil? He had intent, but he disregarded life for a higher cause. Well, our government has done the same. Is he evil? why or why not? <--that is a rhetorical question used to underscore the importance in my mind why we need to define evil first. Any definitions?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a an equation to define Evil. It is set in the context of killing because that is what most of this thread has revolved around:
Killing others simply because they disagree with you = Evil.
Another main component of true Evil is selfishness. Evil is motivated by supreme selfishness that results in absolute disreguard for others. The opposite of Love.
posted
thebad thing about posting, is there are so many ihnteresting points, and by the time you post to one, it is outdated! lol..
I love Rakeeshes post and will coment on it when I have free time, for now, I am off to home, errends, life, et cetera, but i will return and pick up where you leave off...thanks for the interest.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I have to reply to PaladinVirtue before I leave...
It is not that I think your definition is naive, but not very workable. That is ok, neither is mine yet. I am curious if we can achieve a workable definition.
I am trying to point out that it is NOT the killing that is evil. Trumen had a lot of Japanese killed. I see Snowball as evil, bu tI want to better defend why...but I really need to go home. So more later.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, as a note of trivia, it is Harry S Truman, not Harry S*.* Truman. The letter S was just an S, not an abbreviation of anything. Go figure.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Why is America worried about other countries using the A-bomb when, to date, they are the only country in the world who has used it on civilians?"
This question to me is one that, on the surface, sounds thoughtful and wise. But just a little examination, to my mind, makes it appear as it really is: a criticism of America.
Now I've got no problem with criticism of America. It's my home, and I criticize it, its people, and its leadership frequently. But it is, to me, obvious that everyone should be concerned about nuclear war, not just America. And in fact we, being the only ones who have actually used nuclear weapons in a war situation, should perhaps be considered expert in concern over whether or not it will be used again.
Kind of like (and I know this is a flawed analogy) cop has to shoot a criminal with his sidearm, he's seen what it can do and is therefore more concerned than someone who knows about the effect of guns than an academic observer.
But anyway...
quote:The theory that makes most sense to me is because we wanted to send a message to Russia. The war was over, Japan was collapsing, and we had our marines ready to invade...BUT... we knew what was going on in Russia and could not afford a new war. Pretty powerful message that started the cold war.
I don't know, you might be right...but the large Western apathy seems to contradict this theory. Why did we just let the Soviet Union envelop much of the world for years before we got our tails into gear? Is it solely because we had the Bomb and didn't think we'd need to ever fight again? I don't think so, because that stupidity didn't permeate all of the American leadership. I think it's also because, even during the war, we thought the Soviets were our friends. This was never true.
It seems to me that the ultimate causes for Japan's entry into WWII, before and after Pearl Harbor, had little to do with stamping out democratic elements within its own population. It seemed to me to be more a desire to fulfill longstanding territorial and imperial ambition, to be its own economic masters and dominant in the Pacific, and to spread its own superior culture and people throughout. I could be wrong, but I've never heard the explanation you've given.
quote:You think anyone could look the people in the eyes, understand the value of life, be emotionally connected and STILL drop the bomb?
Yes. But then, I probably define the words you used differently than you would.
quote:I have also heard an American Officer of high rank (at my rinky-dink state college) say that wars are not won until you take it to the civilians. I believe him.
Then how does this explain America's methods of waging war? We make massive, expensive, frequently dangerous and inefficient efforts to avoid taking war to civilians quite often. While our wars have claimed their civilian lives, if America operated according to the (incorrect, I believe) doctrine espoused by that military officer, how America makes war would be radically different.
quote:I agree, we need to look at them as briliant strategest and not just evil people, However, do you believe in the presence of evil on this earth and how would you define it?
I do agree that labelling them 'evil' and then simply not trying to think like they do is a recipe for disaster. A successful strategist should be able to make himself think like his enemy. But this does not, as I said earlier, mean that this particular enemy is not an evil one. Nor are they by any means 'brilliant strategists'. Perhaps they've got some tactical sense, but their means have not at all achieved their ends.
The most friendly government to their cause has been overthrown, and American and Allied soldiers have invaded and conquered. This has not been completely successful, but al Qaeda was removed from their primary base. One of the most famed and powerful (well, once anyway) Middle-Eastern governments has been overthrown, and it begins to appear as though a non-theocratic, Western-style government will take its place. These sorts of things are not the result of successful strategic planning if I'm an al Qaeda operative.
This is not to say strategic thinking has been entirely successful on the part of America, either. Because it's just as obvious that ain't true.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Was their apparent motivation, to send a message to the US about meddling in their affairs, evil? Or just the action of cowardly killing thousands of innocent people?
Personally, I would have to say it that it was anything but cowardly. It was a well-planned, ruthless attack on a target by men who had to have balls of steel, excuse the expression.
Note that I do not admire their actions, but I do give credit where credit is due. To say that they were cowardly is to say that Hitler was stupid or something of the kind; it is a view clouded by hatred.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
) The fact is that the Japanese society was under control of it's military. They were not going to surrender and there is an abundance of evidence support THIS. (Why do you think it took 2 of them anyhow?) The bomb ended the war and killed the fewest people in the process. I am not ashamed of government for doing so. I am proud of them. It was a horrible war on many accounts and the whole thing is regretable, but after all, we didn't exactly start it either. We just finished it. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Much more completly too.
