quote:

---

I agree with Zorro. Although I'm not sure about the "need to advance technologically" part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Llareggub:
But does this not mean that we do not apply the same moral standards to killing in war as to killing in any other area of human life. Isn't that a double standard?

Secondly, I am not sure about using simple utilitarian judgements about the 'greater good' is sufficient to justify the taking of human lives

---

quote:

---

I think that just wars are ones with clearly defined and worthy goals. Some revolutions are "just" wars, and I think that there's an argument for saying that sometimes we need wars. We advance considerably in technological terms due to some wars, and sometimes it is necessary to have a war for a country to progress, by that I mean revolutions.

---

This is simply a justification on the basis of the ‘greater good for the greater number’ Certainly we sometimes have to do things to prevent worse things happening, but when it comes to taking human life we would not normally regard it as acceptable merely on the grounds that it will do more good in the long run
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 
A just war would be a war that has good clearly fighting evil....and I have yet to see one of them.

I have, however seen a lot of wars between empires, some of which were more abusive than others, but all of which were abusive.

There is no way, for example, that either side of WWI could claim to be fighting for "Good" considering both sides thought it acceptable to send millions of men to their deaths in the trenches.

Similarly WWII, usually flagged up as a "just war" against the "evil nazis"...however the sides who won continued to be oppressive (obvious examples can be seen in segregated US, Stalinist Russia, and hey simply in Wage Slavery culture that now has Europe in its grips).

Ooops

Gets off soapbox

[ 03. January 2006, 16:19: Message edited by: Teapot ]
 

---

Posted by James Mc (# 3414) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
One problem with the Just War idea is that all other attempts must be triend and failed - while everyone is talking the enemy is stockpiling weapons. Had many wars started more quickly, they would have been less severe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zorro:
Freddy said;

quote:

---

I agree with Zorro. Although I'm not sure about the "need to advance technologically" part.

---

Cheers for the "I agree with Zorro," bit, but I never actually said that we need to advance technically, so wars are in some ways good, I was meaning that technological advancement can be a pleasant side-effect of wars.

---

Sorry. I misread. I agree.
 

---

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :
 
No worries, Freddy.

(sorry, wrong smiley)

[ 03. January 2006, 16:34: Message edited by: Zorro ]
 

---

Posted by Llareggub (# 10210) on :
 
Is there however a right to self defence? Does that justify war?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Llareggub:
Is there however a right to self defence? Does that justify war?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Similarly WWII, usually flagged up as a "just war" against the "evil nazis"...however the sides who won continued to be oppressive (obvious examples can be seen in segregated US, Stalinist Russia, and hey simply in Wage Slavery culture that now has Europe in its grips).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Can consequences of a war make the war itself unjust? Personally, I don't think so. Besides, so far as WW2 is concerned, I believe Winny C flagged up the dangers of a Europe under Stalinist Russia but the Americans (and prolly the Brits too, not sure) didn't have the stomach to continue to the point where Russia was kicked out of Europe.

I would say that WW2 is a good example of a just war.

---

Gonna have to agree to differ on that one littlelady (why do I feel I should say that with a John Wayne accent?!! ) as I reckon WWII was a war between a whole hoard of evil empires…..and Winny C was almost as callous as Hitler (which you can see in his memoirs etc).
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Gonna have to agree to differ on that one littlelady (why do I feel I should say that with a John Wayne accent?!! )

---

No idea. But if you start walking like him too then I'll get worried ...
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Similarly WWII, usually flagged up as a "just war" against the "evil nazis"...however the sides who won continued to be oppressive (obvious examples can be seen in segregated US, Stalinist Russia, and hey simply in Wage Slavery culture that now has Europe in its grips).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
So the just-ness of a war is determined by the acts of the countries after the fact? If that's the case then the U.S. is now de-segregated and Russia is moving away from its former enslavement and killing of innocent victims so the war is now just by your standards since we are now "just".

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry Teapot, I am as relativistic as the next guy, but there are ways of drawing lines as to the worst of two evils. The U.S., U.K., and other allies performed as justly and admirably in WWII as they could for the times, and the Nazi leadership did not. Trying the just-ness of the war by how stupidly various countries behaved on non-war related issues after the fact is a bit absurd.

---

quote:

---

WWI and WWII would probably qualify as the liberated population was relieved to be free of the Germans.

---

quote:

---

Every piece of land in the world has been fought over except in the extreme north and south where survival is the war. It is part of our being, part of our nature.

---

Quite appropriately, that is extract of domesticated bovine.

It is the nature of settled agriculture to fight wars of expansion, but that was not the way of humans for a VERY long time and so all of its values do NOT have to be embraced.

[ 03. January 2006, 18:28: Message edited by: Teapot ]
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
You say "It is measured by the values of those forces fighting, at the time of the fighting." but you earlier stated "the sides who won continued to be oppressive (obvious examples can be seen in segregated US, Stalinist Russia, and hey simply in Wage Slavery culture that now has Europe in its grips". Which is it, values then or now?

The values at that time can be generally lumped as "Democratic Republics" versus "Authoritarian Fascists that kill Jews, Homosexuals, and the Mentally Incompetents for fun". I'm not sure which values you consider paramount.

You also said that "A war is a fight between two or more powers for the dominance of their way of being". While true, as you know there is also these little things called values that often govern "their way of being". One Power had values that resulted (ultimately) in De-Segregation and more freedom for the masses. The other Power resulted in Genocide, Invasion, Authoritarianism over its masses and all around nastiness.

quote:

---

"Until they realise that they were gonna get shafted by the Soviets, the Americans or the Europeans instead….."

---

quote:

---

It is the nature of settled agriculture to fight wars of expansion, but that was not the way of humans for a VERY long time and so all of its values do NOT have to be embraced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Can consequences of a war make the war itself unjust? Personally, I don't think so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"Authoritarian Fascists that kill Jews, Homosexuals, and the Mentally Incompetents for fun".

---

MG, you forgot the Gypsies.

In fact, if we hadn't gone to war, given Hitlers total insanity, probably anyone who wasn't blond and blue-eyed would have been gassed, or used as lamp shades.

Which leads me on to leo's point, where he translates this:

quote:

---

4. The cost of fighting must not outweigh the cost of not fighting (Prudential judgement) - consequences

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
As nobody has yet spelt out how the Christian tradition defines 'Just War', perhaps I should:

1. It must be called by a lawful authority
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The values at that time can be generally lumped as "Democratic Republics" versus "Authoritarian Fascists that kill Jews, Homosexuals, and the Mentally Incompetents for fun". I'm not sure which values you consider paramount.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
The reason we fought Hitler but not Stalin was nothing to do with the Jews. It was essentially because we were worried they would try to invade us if we left it much longer.

---

Actually, I thought it had something to do with Poland and some treaties and the fact that we'd done nothing but flash a piece of blank paper at the cameras following the invasion of ... sheesh, I've forgotten how to spell it! Sorry to all Czecs! (Which I'm not even sure I've spelt correctly! )

Obviously - it goes without saying - that the spectre of invasion was part of the story. But not the whole story. And the treatment of the Jews was known about prior to declaration of war (although the concentration camps apparently were not).
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You say "It is measured by the values of those forces fighting, at the time of the fighting." but you earlier stated "the sides who won continued to be oppressive (obvious examples can be seen in segregated US, Stalinist Russia, and hey simply in Wage Slavery culture that now has Europe in its grips". Which is it, values then or now?

---

quote:

---

The values at that time can be generally lumped as "Democratic Republics" versus "Authoritarian Fascists that kill Jews, Homosexuals, and the Mentally Incompetents for fun". I'm not sure which values you consider paramount.

---

quote:

---

You also said that "A war is a fight between two or more powers for the dominance of their way of being". While true, as you know there is also these little things called values that often govern "their way of being". One Power had values that resulted (ultimately) in De-Segregation and more freedom for the masses. The other Power resulted in Genocide, Invasion, Authoritarianism over its masses and all around nastiness.

---

quote:

---

Um, you do realize that the soviets are out of Eastern Europe, the U.S. helped rebuild Western Europe at great expense, and well, the Europeans were the ones liberated, right?

---

quote:

---

Um, show me a prolonged period of time where there wasn't war. Dates please.

---

Show me written history that is not from the settled societies.
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 
Um, Teapot, you wouldn't be anti-American would you?

Did I understand your latest post to include a claim that America is a "parasite the size of a moon"? I hope I misunderstood you, but it definitely appeared to be what you were saying.
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 
Lol no littlelady, its the EU that's a parasite the size of the moon

[ 03. January 2006, 21:46: Message edited by: Teapot ]
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Lol no littlelady, its the EU that's a parasite the size of the moon

---

Phew! *mops brow*

That's ok then!
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Teapot

You are still referencing the after-effects of the war as being somehow relevent to whether the war was just. It is not. As You Said: "It is measured by the values of those forces fighting, at the time of the fighting."

History is of course written by the victors. However, I think that we are discussing things that are not "History from the victors" because the History of Segregation was written by the blacks and the Holocaust is only doubted by bloody fools, and I do not take you for one.

If you can show me how getting beaten up because you are black or drank from the water fountain equates to 9 to 26 million Jews, homosexuals, mental incompetents, gypsies , and others killed than you are a post-modern moral relativist of the highest grade, if one can call that "highest". I am sure the Jews, homosexuals, mental incompetents, gypsies, and others killed in the holocaust will respect your historical opinion.

P.S. I personally am in favor of Most Favored Nation status for China, as not doing trade with Authoritarian Communist states has worked so well with Cuba. Not.

[ 03. January 2006, 23:11: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
 

---

Posted by FiliusSyon (# 10722) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

The U.S., U.K., and other allies performed as justly and admirably in WWII as they could for the times, and the Nazi leadership did not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
To certain individuals on this thread.

There was a video made of the liberation of Belsen. Watch it. Research the actions of the Japanese Unit 731. Then come back and tell me that, deeply flawed or not, the British and Americans were not at least a cut above that. And that it was not worth fighting to prevent even more such atrocities than the Germans and Japanese were given time to carry out.

Yes, Churchill was a bastard. Stalinist Russia was comparable to Nazi Germany or the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (see the Holodomor for a good example) - and I regret that we didn't have the ability, never mind the will to overthrow Stalin. Nevertheless, sometimes war to end evil is the least bad option available - and as such it can be described as a Just War. World War 2 was one such.

---

If you are talking to me, there is no shame in calling me by name.

I do not think we need to compare war atrocities here, because frankly, the axis leads both in size and severity. Still, these incidents clearly were atrocities.

I am in a quarrelsome mood today, so I will add another thing: Is just cause sufficient for a just war, or is a certain conduct of war required? If so, where do you draw the line between just and unjust conduct?

Of course, I consider this question somewhat academic.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FiliusSyon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

The U.S., U.K., and other allies performed as justly and admirably in WWII as they could for the times, and the Nazi leadership did not.

---

I would like to call your attention to a few isolated incidents like the eradication of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Enemies at the gates are still good reasons to go to war, though, which certainly holds for Britain in WWII.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteCanada:
In all this argument about just and unjust war, please remember this little quote from me (and probably others - I forget where I heard it first)

To the victors belong the history

Which is to say, that those who win determine the justness of a war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Sometimes Conventional Wisdom is little more than bullshit with a sugar coating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
....waging war against Joseph Kony's LRA woulde seem eminently justifiable to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If you can show me how getting beaten up because you are black or drank from the water fountain equates to 9 to 26 million Jews, homosexuals, mental incompetents, gypsies , and others killed than you are a post-modern moral relativist of the highest grade, if one can call that "highest". I am sure the Jews, homosexuals, mental incompetents, gypsies, and others killed in the holocaust will respect your historical opinion.

---

quote:

---

P.S. I personally am in favor of Most Favored Nation status for China, as not doing trade with Authoritarian Communist states has worked so well with Cuba. Not.

---

Nice.

 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 
Personally, I have never viewed Winston Churchill as some kind of hero like many have (who perhaps now will be sadly disillusioned). He was a man of his time called to do a job that I certainly would not have wanted to do. So the possibility that his attitude was not always saintly, or that his decisions may seem harsh or even barbaric sometimes, does not surprise me.

Whatever people might think of the blanket bombing of Dresden et al, there was the blitz first. Not only this but had those blanket bombings not occurred, would the Nazis have stopped? Would they have been convinced that their time was up? The same applies to Japan, which had a culture engrained with not losing face under any circumstances whatsoever. How many allies were to die before Japan stopped? Faced with such scenarios, what were the leaders of the allied nations supposed to do? It was a truly tough call.

It is so easy to judge the decision makers now, 60 years on, as if we know what we're talking about. We don't. Most of us probably weren't even born then.

So far as the victory quote is concerned, were we the victors? We won in that we stopped the Nazis and the Japanese of the time. But so many of our own people died and were hideously injured that I'm not sure we had a victory as such. We fulfilled the original purposes of the war.
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 
When you fight evil with evil, what do you end up with regardless of who wins?
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The lesser of two evils.

[ 04. January 2006, 09:26: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think I'm missing a trick here, anyway.... aren't we all perfect Teapot? How than could WC have fought evil with evil?
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
When you fight evil with evil, what do you end up with regardless of who wins?

---

I'm confused again. Are you implying the allied countries all had evil governments, evil people or were just evil per se?

Or is this about the EU too?
 

---

Posted by Llareggub (# 10210) on :
 
IngoB

quote:

---

The "Just War" doctrine deals basically with the time prior to the war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
When you fight evil with evil, what do you end up with regardless of who wins?

---

I'm confused again. Are you implying the allied countries all had evil governments, evil people or were just evil per se?

Or is this about the EU too?

---

I'm saying that each side was a long way from being loving in its values, as can be seen in the values they showed at the time as well as the world that has been built on the values of the victors.

Mdijon, recognising evil actions in service to evil values is not the same as condemning those who do the evil. As we have discussed before, recognising a persons "perfection" is about realising that it is forgiveness that they deserve (as that brings people back into being aware of god's love) not condemnation (as that serves only hate).

[ 04. January 2006, 10:30: Message edited by: Teapot ]
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
I'm saying that each side was a long way from being loving in its values, as can be seen in the values they showed at the time as well as the world that has been built on the values of the victors.

---

Ok. But if that is the case then no-one can ever, under any circumstances, make any form of judgement upon another. That is, if the man next door is beating his partner to a pulp every night, because your own values will have flaws in them, you are not in a position to report that man to the police or intervene in any way whatsoever.

That may be an extreme example, but it does seem to me to be the logical track such a view would take. We would all be completely hogtied by such a relativist viewpoint.

As has already been said, the allies were not from perfect countries, were not perfect individuals, but when compared to what the Nazis were doing at the time - from conquering other countries to abusing swathes of the population - the allies were morally on firmer ground.

And I'd much rather have the Britain of today than a Britain under the Nazis, thanks very much! I've got freckles. They might have come after me next!
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Ok. But if that is the case then no-one can ever, under any circumstances, make any form of judgement upon another. That is, if the man next door is beating his partner to a pulp every night, because your own values will have flaws in them, you are not in a position to report that man to the police or intervene in any way whatsoever.

That may be an extreme example, but it does seem to me to be the logical track such a view would take. We would all be completely hogtied by such a relativist viewpoint.

---

What makes you think it is relativist? It is possible to intervene without being a vessel to (lesser) evil by, in acting, not hating/condemning the sinner, but instead simply defending against the sin.

quote:

---

As has already been said, the allies were not from perfect countries, were not perfect individuals, but when compared to what the Nazis were doing at the time - from conquering other countries to abusing swathes of the population - the allies were morally on firmer ground.

And I'd much rather have the Britain of today than a Britain under the Nazis, thanks very much! I've got freckles. They might have come after me next!

---

“Lesser evils” are the way evils are snuck past our defences and frequently they grow into greater evils….. Our economic wealth is rooted in trading with sweatshop labour economies, few do anything at all against Guantanamo, our humour is increasingly based in sneering, and almost all dream of ever more riches/power/status, all whilst our govts wage wars for market expansion on the grounds that the “enemy” has WMD that our govts sold him in the first place....killing and maiming 100s of 1000s in the process.

Hitler was foolish, he tried to build tyranny on the principles of 1984 alone. The modern lot learned from his mistake and realise the place of “Brave New World” in there as well….

I realise that not everyone on here is Christian but I fail to see how the actions of the Allies in any way concords with realising the kingdom.
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Ok. But if that is the case then no-one can ever, under any circumstances, make any form of judgement upon another. That is, if the man next door is beating his partner to a pulp every night, because your own values will have flaws in them, you are not in a position to report that man to the police or intervene in any way whatsoever.

That may be an extreme example, but it does seem to me to be the logical track such a view would take. We would all be completely hogtied by such a relativist viewpoint.

---

What makes you think it is relativist? It is possible to intervene without being a vessel to (lesser) evil by, in acting, not hating/condemning the sinner, but instead simply defending against the sin.

---

quote:

---

“Lesser evils” are the way evils are snuck past our defences and frequently they grow into greater evils….. Our economic wealth is rooted in trading with sweatshop labour economies, few do anything at all against Guantanamo, our humour is increasingly based in sneering, and almost all dream of ever more riches/power/status, all whilst our govts wage wars for market expansion on the grounds that the “enemy” has WMD that our govts sold him in the first place....killing and maiming 100s of 1000s in the process.

---

quote:

---

Hitler was foolish, he tried to build tyranny on the principles of 1984 alone. The modern lot learned from his mistake and realise the place of “Brave New World” in there as well….

---

quote:

---

I realise that not everyone on here is Christian but I fail to see how the actions of the Allies in any way concords with realising the kingdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Facism was, and still is, wrong. I don't get absolutist myself very often, but about facism I am an absolutist. It is wrong. It had to be challenged.

---

Indeed but what it was challenged by was not “Good”. The evil of the allies was not as heavy handed and blatant but it was still a long way from good.

quote:

---

And I am extremely glad it was. It is very likely that I wouldn't have had the freedom and opportunity I have now if it hadn't been.

---

quote:

---

But all this has nothing whatsoever to do with WW2, which is what we were discussing.

---

quote:

---

Surely discussion about such subjects as you raise here is a thread all in itself?

---

Probably

quote:

---

Who are 'the modern lot'? Switzerland? Britain? Luxembourg? America? Lesotho?

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure that WW2 was based on realising the kingdom of God. So far as I am aware, it was about freedom from tyranny.

---

It did not succeed though, because it WASN’T “based on realising the kingdom of God.” But was about expanding the empire of men.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mdijon:
Teapot, what if you were one of the soldiers in the RPF in 1994 in Rwanda?

Would you have taken up arms to fight interhamwe, to prevent genocide... or would you have stood back, saying "I cannot fight evil with evil. Kill my and my family if you must."

---

I would have taken up arms to defend my family and done that. I would not have taken up arms to replace one tyrant with another. When you approach the world with hate in your heart you will only replace one monster with another.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Fair enough. So a just war is possible then.
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 
It is possible for fighting to be just.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Do you mean that fighting can be just but not a war? If so, where is the dividing line. If the RPF encouraged you to fight with them against the interhamwe genocide after saving your own family, where would you stand?
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 
Sorry, I dont do hypotheticals....I would have to decide at the time based upon what the aims were.

If you are asking if I have any object to using force to defend others then no I have no objection in principle but I would be cautious of joining a war as I am all too aware of how corrupting cries for vengeance can be.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Sorry, I dont do hypotheticals....I would have to decide at the time based upon what the aims were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Sorry, I dont do hypotheticals....I would have to decide at the time based upon what the aims were.

---

Sorry to hear about this disability, as many of us find this is a useful way of understanding our own and others' positions.

---

Saying "I could hypothetically do [insert bad thing]" is often a sign that they could. Saying "I could hypothetically do [insert good thing]" is rarely a sound reason for expecting such
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Is that the only point of discussing hypothetical situations? I think you're missing something. Or just avoiding answering a question.

Most of our discussions on the board are hypothetical.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
I'm not sure I can accept the concept of a just war. Perhaps I don't fully understand the concept, of course. It seems to put us into an area of justification and potential hypocrisy that I'm not comfortable with.

It seems to me that no matter how justified the cause, war is always going to be cruel, and involve the deaths of people who have no power in the situation and are only tangentially connected to the reason for the war (both army and civilian) and suffering for many more. Things will always be done on both sides that we ought to be ashamed of.

It seems to me more honest to say that war is an unequivocal evil - but sometimes, unfortunately, a necessity to prevent a greater evil or defend ourselves.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
'Just' in terms of one of the participants, if not the war itself.... perhaps better to talk in terms of a 'necessary' war - or an 'unavoidable' war, rather than 'just'?
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:


The "Just War" doctrine deals basically with the time prior to the war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Llareggub:

Precisely. There is no way a an unjust war can be justified either by the way in which it is conducted or its outcomes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Sorry, I dont do hypotheticals....I would have to decide at the time based upon what the aims were.

---

CAUGHT YA!

How can you judge whether WW2 was just or not? By your own reasoning you would have to have been there, in 1939, in a position of leadership, fully aware of the aims of the war, to be able to make a judgement either way.

Otherwise, you are guilty of indulging in the hypotheticals you have here said you do not indulge in.


 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 
Hypotheticals look forwards littlelady, not backwards. It is easy to look backwards and see the darkness lurking on all sides in WWII; not so to look forwards and predict the same.

"Rumors of my capture have been greatly exagerated"
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If you can show me how getting beaten up because you are black or drank from the water fountain equates to 9 to 26 million Jews, homosexuals, mental incompetents, gypsies , and others killed than you are a post-modern moral relativist of the highest grade, if one can call that "highest". I am sure the Jews, homosexuals, mental incompetents, gypsies, and others killed in the holocaust will respect your historical opinion.

---

How many civilians were killed in the first 2 uses of nuclear terrorism (where the US admits they targeted two civilian cities for the terror effect it would have)? Why did the US wait to enter the war until after Pearl Harbour (which, evidence now suggests, they knew about in advance...)? What of Churchill who accepted Auschwitz etc as collateral damage rather than let on the allies had broken the Enigma code?

---

I think you have drank too much of the historical revisionist Koolaid. The problem with all three of the statements above is that they are taken out of historical context.

Answer: The Bombs saved way more lives from the Invasion of Japan, than they took. All one needs to look at was the battles leading up to the Invasion of Japan i.e. Iwo Jima to see that is true.

Answer: Why the hell would the US enter a war until it made sense to do so?

Answer: Why would Churchill (or anyone else for that matter) send troops in behind enemy lines to die trying to save a few when he had to worry about nearly all of Western Europe? Revisionists tend to forget that WWII lacked helicopters to go in and pluck the Jews out, it wasn't as simple as dropping in paratroops and coookies.

And as for China, sometimes you can't help but sleep with the enemy. Except of course that the people of China are not our enemy so we really shouldn't persecute them with trade barriers because their government sucks. And the proof is in the changes in liberties that are gradually overtaking their country. As someone famous once said, "Where goods do not cross borders, armies will" (paraphrased).
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Facism was, and still is, wrong. I don't get absolutist myself very often, but about facism I am an absolutist. It is wrong. It had to be challenged.

---

Indeed but what it was challenged by was not “Good”. The evil of the allies was not as heavy handed and blatant but it was still a long way from good.

---

quote:

---

What freedom would that be? The freedom to fund a corrupt govt or go to jail if you withhold your tax? The freedom to protest against a war that still happens? The freedom to write letters to politicians asking (ASKING!) them to oppose the US on Guantanamo?

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure that WW2 was based on realising the kingdom of God. So far as I am aware, it was about freedom from tyranny. It did not succeed though, because it WASN’T “based on realising the kingdom of God.” But was about expanding the empire of men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Hypotheticals look forwards littlelady, not backwards. It is easy to look backwards and see the darkness lurking on all sides in WWII; not so to look forwards and predict the same.

---

Semantics, dear Teapot. (I've never called a teapot dear before. Tis alarming! ) You can locate a hypothetical at any spot in time, and look forward from that point.

And besides, it's just as easy to look backwards and see nothing but darkness lurking on all sides. We weren't there, so we don't know.

These hypotheticals. They're mighty tricky to pin down!
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Answer: The Bombs saved way more lives from the Invasion of Japan, than they took. All one needs to look at was the battles leading up to the Invasion of Japan i.e. Iwo Jima to see that is true.

---

quote:

---

Answer: Why the hell would the US enter a war until it made sense to do so?

---

Gee, maybe because it was the “just” thing to do to fight fascism?

quote:

---

Answer: Why would Churchill (or anyone else for that matter) send troops in behind enemy lines to die trying to save a few when he had to worry about nearly all of Western Europe? Revisionists tend to forget that WWII lacked helicopters to go in and pluck the Jews out, it wasn't as simple as dropping in paratroops and coookies.

---

quote:

---

And as for China, sometimes you can't help but sleep with the enemy. Except of course that the people of China are not our enemy so we really shouldn't persecute them with trade barriers because their government sucks.

---

That is, quite frankly (checks which board we are in ) utter Botox. We do not have to trade with China, and keeping them supported in having sweatshops full of robot-people is hardly benefiting them; it is a tool for greed justified by apologists. Nothing more.

quote:

---

And the proof is in the changes in liberties that are gradually overtaking their country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Li’llday:
In 1939, …. the allies were not involved in any evil remotely comparable to the Nazis.

---

quote:

---

The fact that I fund BLiar's government is something I have no choice over.

---

quote:

---

But yes, all these freedoms are freedom to me. Under a Nazi regime, it is likely you wouldn't have had the freedom to do any of these things or, in fact, a multiplicity of other things. The fact that you have the freedom to write what you just did on this discussion board is quite possibly something to do with WW2.

---

quote:

---

That wasn't what the Allies were about, but it was of course what the Nazis were about. Britain, for example, didn't extend its empire one iota. In fact, WW2 finished off the British Empire once and for all.

---

Indeed. Britain’s empire was replace by America’s.

quote:

---

And besides, it's just as easy to look backwards and see nothing but darkness lurking on all sides. We weren't there, so we don't know.

---

Hindsight almost invariably gives better perception than foresight…except when looking at your bum in the mirror
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
So let me see if I get this straight. You would rather have had us not drop the bomb and kill a few million more Japanese and allies in the invasion of Japan, have had us sacrifice our troops and possibly prolong the war on a half-baked plan to try to liberate POW camps full of sick and dying from behind enemy lines, and put Chinese people out of work because trade barriers and embargos have worked so well in Iraq and Cuba. As you say:

Nice.
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
If he had released info about Auschwitz mayhap Switzerland would not have been able to claim Neutrality despite the screams from the trains that stopped there being audible to the Swiss in the towns…. And they could act, Britain chose not to so as to not give away that they knew about Enigma and how to decode it.

---

So now the British are to blame for Switzerland's neutrality? What was WC supposed to do? Bomb Switzerland?? If Switzerland wanted to back out of war, as Switzerland likes to do, then it should have the freedom to do so. Some of us don't have to respect "it" for doing so. But there was bugger all WC or anyone else could do about it, regardless of the screams.

It seems that on the one hand you wanted Britain to barge into another country (Switzerland) but on the other not defend it and its allies right to freedom against tyrrany.

quote:

---

Hindsight almost invariably gives better perception than foresight…except when looking at your bum in the mirror

---

Ha! Speak for yerself! My bum's just fine thanks very much!
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
So let me see if I get this straight. You would rather have had us not drop the bomb and kill a few million more Japanese and allies in the invasion of Japan, have had us sacrifice our troops and possibly prolong the war on a half-baked plan to try to liberate POW camps full of sick and dying from behind enemy lines, and put Chinese people out of work because trade barriers and embargos have worked so well in Iraq and Cuba. As you say:

Nice.

---

It takes a strange mind to justify the use of nukes on civilian cities.....especially in support of a regime which at home, would continue with segregation for another 20 years (and still does, economically so, if New Orleans is anything to go by). But hey, as you are happy to trade with China I dont expect you to understand that

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
So now the British are to blame for Switzerland's neutrality? What was WC supposed to do? Bomb Switzerland?? If Switzerland wanted to back out of war, as Switzerland likes to do, then it should have the freedom to do so. Some of us don't have to respect "it" for doing so. But there was bugger all WC or anyone else could do about it, regardless of the screams.

---

quote:

---

Ha! Speak for yerself! My bum's just fine thanks very much!

---

Well, I’d have to know that in person to be sure hehehehe

[runs off! ]
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
.....
Which leads me on to leo's point, where he translates this:

quote:

---

4. The cost of fighting must not outweigh the cost of not fighting (Prudential judgement) - consequences

---

as justification for not going to war, in case there are consequences beyond the war itself.

leo, I would contest your interpretation of this point. How have the costs of fighting WW2 outweighed not fighting? Are you saying that the freedom of France, Belgium, Britain, possibly America (since he had plans to attack there), Russia (since he tried attacking there), and numerous other countries were not worth it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
No, I wasn't saying that. I was merely saying what the Just War doctrine says; I wasn't giving an opinion on whether World War 2 met the criteria.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Hiroshima/Nagasaki was more than justified by the Japanese civilians and Allied lives it saved from the invasion of Japan, as those that it killed.

---

quote:

---

....the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death.

---

quote:

---

At the early stage of the invasion, 1,000 Japanese and American soldiers would be dying every hour.

---

quote:

---

One can only guess at how many civilians would have committed suicide in their homes or in futile mass military attacks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
WC could have released the info

---

quote:

---

and shamed Switzerland into not allowing trains to pass through their territory…..

---

Who says that would have been the outcome?

It's all hypothetical. But in the past.
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
No matter how you slice it, at that time and at that place, the "just" thing to do was to save Millions and Millions of lives by dropping the bomb on 90,000 lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
On Kyushu (Japan) alone there were 790,000 defenders plus 8.5 million civilians. Imagine them all or mostly all fighting to the death as they did in Iwo Jima.

---

quote:

---

The highest numbers at Hiroshima are estimated between 65,000 and 200,000 with best estimates at 90,000. Radiation after effects deaths since then are estimated at a thousand.

No matter how you slice it, at that time and at that place, the "just" thing to do was to save Millions and Millions of lives by dropping the bomb on 90,000 lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Whatever people might think of the blanket bombing of Dresden et al, there was the blitz first. Not only this but had those blanket bombings not occurred, would the Nazis have stopped? Would they have been convinced that their time was up? The same applies to Japan, which had a culture engrained with not losing face under any circumstances whatsoever. How many allies were to die before Japan stopped? Faced with such scenarios, what were the leaders of the allied nations supposed to do? It was a truly tough call.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
Just curious if anyone bothered to read my links on the Rape of Nanking.

There were aproxamaetly 300,000 people murdered in Nanking over the course of six weeks. Aprox. 20,000 females of all ages from young children to geriatrics raped and then murdered. Pregnant women raped, and then sliced open so their fetus' could be removed.

Thats what Japanese occupation was like. Pardon me if I don't weep to loudly over any deaths caused by ending their regime.

---

quote:

---

would God in his gracious providence have allowed the consequences of such a decision to be as horrible as dropping a nuclear bomb was?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
Just curious if anyone bothered to read my links on the Rape of Nanking.

There were aproxamaetly 300,000 people murdered in Nanking over the course of six weeks. Aprox. 20,000 females of all ages from young children to geriatrics raped and then murdered. Pregnant women raped, and then sliced open so their fetus' could be removed.

Thats what Japanese occupation was like. Pardon me if I don't weep to loudly over any deaths caused by ending their regime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
The option for america was dropping a bomb off the tokyo coast so everyone could see it, then saying "we have another and all your cities are made of wood and all your children will burn, now stop this foolishness an meet us for peace". Instead they chose to nuke 1000s of families, twice. A state that does that has embraced something VERY dark indeed.

---

quote:

---

These things were not done by the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That is a strange sense of justice to punish those who had nothing to do with the act. It would be like punishing the Iraqi people for the sins of Sadam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
These things were not done by the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That is a strange sense of justice to punish those who had nothing to do with the act. It would be like punishing the Iraqi people for the sins of Sadam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Often, but not always, the reason for suicide bombers is "as you sow, so shall you reap".....especially for Zion (Israel is a people, not a state) who have learned much from their Nazi oppressors.... Not a "I support them" but an "I understand how they are made".

---

Mmm *strokes chin thoughtfully*. Interesting. I have absolutely no clue at all as to how a suicide bomber is "made". All I know is that they are full of hatred and couldn't give a damn about who they destroy with their hatred. That alone means I have absolutely no understanding of them at all. And no sympathy whatsoever.

The interesting bit, however, is that you can in some way connect to a suicide bomber, but are frank and explicit in your condemnation of Britain, the US, Australia, NZ, Canada and numerous others in fighting for their own freedom against tyranny.

I guess politics is all!
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
I have absolutely no clue at all as to how a suicide bomber is "made". All I know is that they are full of hatred and couldn't give a damn about who they destroy with their hatred. That alone means I have absolutely no understanding of them at all. And no sympathy whatsoever.

The interesting bit, however, is that you can in some way connect to a suicide bomber, but are frank and explicit in your condemnation of Britain, the US, Australia, NZ, Canada and numerous others in fighting for their own freedom against tyranny.

I guess politics is all!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
The same could be said about the residents of London, Liverpool, and the other towns and cities in Britain that were hit by the Nazis, over and over again.

---

quote:

---

I wonder ... if the Nazis hadn't involved civilians in WW2, would The Bomb ever have been dropped?

---

quote:

---

Something else I wonder is this. The Nazis were developing atomic potential to use against the allies. That the Americans got there first was because a physicist crossed the tracks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
I can have sympathy for someone dragged so far into darkness that they turn to this path and I can understand what has lead them there, without supporting them. Similarly I can have the same approach to Nazi germany and the US/UK/USSR etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Often, but not always, the reason for suicide bombers is "as you sow, so shall you reap".....especially for Zion (Israel is a people, not a state) who have learned much from their Nazi oppressors.... Not a "I support them" but an "I understand how they are made".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Often, but not always, the reason for suicide bombers is "as you sow, so shall you reap".....especially for Zion (Israel is a people, not a state) who have learned much from their Nazi oppressors.... Not a "I support them" but an "I understand how they are made".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FiliusSyon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Often, but not always, the reason for suicide bombers is "as you sow, so shall you reap".....especially for Zion (Israel is a people, not a state) who have learned much from their Nazi oppressors.... Not a "I support them" but an "I understand how they are made".

---

I think that comparision of the State of Israel with the Nazis is quite repulsive, no matter how heavy-handed some of the Israli techiques are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Ah, that would be just, but is it wise?

A thing that was learned by the U.S. in Vietnam/Somalia and Russia in Afghanistan is that for a war to be wise it needs a few things:

1. A clear mission objective.
2. Overwhelming Force
3. An exit strategy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Not so. "Just war" theory deals with the time prior to war, jus ad bellum, the conduct of the war, jus in bello and more recently has been extended to include actions after the war just post bellum.

---

All of which, of course, have been discussed in my post. Nevertheless, the typical Aquinas-type "Just War" tick list that always gets cited concerns the decision to go to war or not (and possibly when to end it), that is, it is applied prior to the war. Obviously, we can discuss justice during and after the war as well. Which is what I did.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
The option for america was dropping a bomb off the tokyo coast so everyone could see it, then saying "we have another and all your cities are made of wood and all your children will burn, now stop this foolishness an meet us for peace". Instead they chose to nuke 1000s of families, twice. A state that does that has embraced something VERY dark indeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Decency is not a numbers game to be calculated by accountants Geo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Sorry, I dont do hypotheticals....I would have to decide at the time based upon what the aims were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Ah, that would be just, but is it wise?

A thing that was learned by the U.S. in Vietnam/Somalia and Russia in Afghanistan is that for a war to be wise it needs a few things:

1. A clear mission objective.
2. Overwhelming Force
3. An exit strategy.

---

Well, in the light of recent events I find it highly doubtful that the US has indeed learned this "wisdom". However, the question is anyway what sort of "wisdom" we are talking about here. Maybe your wisdom is nothing but "prudent calculation of advantage". Can it be wisdom in a Christian sense to leave something as evil as the LRA in existence? Or do we have to combat such an evil no matter what? Anyway, I'm being personally hypocritical since I wouldn't raise my arm as volunteer...

---

I will answer my post even though it was attributed to Chapelhead

On Iraq, I would agree that we are lacking in number 3, however, the year is young even if this president is a halfwit.

You are bringing in two seperate topics as I see it. There is 1) the religious perspective and yes from that perspective it would certainly be just to kill of the LRA IMHO. Then there is 2) the State perspective and in that case it would be just also, but not practical, and in States practicality does matter. The only time a State should combat evil is when it is in the best interests of the people of that State to do so, since it is the people of that State that will be dying for the cause.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I would suggest reading "the Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes, before you go on making all these claims about who did what to whom while ignoring provable fact.

Yes, the Germans had a plan to develop an atomic bomb, but a) didn't have enough material to work with and b) what little they had was taken out by British raids on the heavy water plant in Norway, among other things.

Yes, many (mostly Jewish) German scientists came to the US as a result of a) Germany driving them out and b) Einstein and others asking for them to come.

Yes, the Japanese had the theory of the bomb worked out, but didn't have the capability to build one.

Yes, the Americans could have dropped just one bomb, but they a) had two different types to test and b) wanted a quick resolution, which the first bomb didn't quite do. And, yes, The Emperor overrode the militarists and asked for a peace settlement.

And Truman did agonise over the decision, but felt in the end that the use of the bomb was the lesser of two evils. Moral fine points don't work against fanatics, such as the kamikaze (who were a real threat, not just some video game)

Wars aren't purely John Wayne riding into town and saving the girl- someone gets killed when there is gunplay, whatever the gun nuts like to think. The guys killed fighting for/against Franco in 1936 are just as dead as the guys killed by Donald Rumsfeld's arms dealing in recent history.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I got my sources for my posts, or were you talking to someone else?
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The Japanese military did not give up even after they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and the emporer himself had to intervene to stop the war even after the second bombing.

---

quote:

---

So how exactly do you create a cogent opinion and justify it Teapot? Ouija Board?

---

quote:

---

Just proclaiming you are holy while saying that I am apparently morally bankrupt while you seem to be prepared to sacrifice millions to save 10s of thousands doesn't cut it down here in Purg (or in the real world for that matter).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
...maybe they could have tried influencing him in a way that did not involve slaughtering 100s 0f 1000s of civilians....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
you don't do hypotheticals.

---

quote:

---

What a good idea. I bet they never thought of that. I bet nobody even paused for a moment to consider if there way to do it without slaughter, such was the darkness their souls had embraced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The Japanese military did not give up even after they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and the emporer himself had to intervene to stop the war even after the second bombing.

---

So the bombs had very little effect on the military……and instead relied on the influence of one person….maybe they could have tried influencing him in a way that did not involve slaughtering 100s 0f 1000s of civilians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Considering they used nukes TWICE and on CIVILIAN cities, in order to get Japan to surrender UNCONDITIONALLY to a country who still thought it right to beat up black guys for drinking from the wrong fountain....no I would hazard a guess that "nobody even paused for a moment to consider if there way to do it without slaughter, such was the darkness their souls had embraced" is a very accurate description.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FiliusSyon:
The emperor lived and abdicated in his position as the son of the sun godess. Btw the proper word would be sepuku, LittleLady. "Harakiri" is usually not used , as it is considered undignified(literally means "belly-cutting").

---

Thank you, FiliusSyon. I had totally forgotten what happened to him.

And I would have been unable to spell either term!
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
These things were not done by the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That is a strange sense of justice to punish those who had nothing to do with the act.

---

The same could be said about the residents of London, Liverpool, and the other towns and cities in Britain that were hit by the Nazis, over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Using that kind of reasoning, Japan was "a country that raped, killed and murdered civilians and prisoners"

---

quote:

---

You've still not answered clearly whether you believe in a just war, and, if not, what the difference between fighting and a war is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
These things were not done by the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That is a strange sense of justice to punish those who had nothing to do with the act.

---

The same could be said about the residents of London, Liverpool, and the other towns and cities in Britain that were hit by the Nazis, over and over again.

---

I realise that there is a widespread human belief that if you have been sinned against that entitles you to sin as much as you want.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Fighting is an action; it can be justifiable in extremis. War is fighting that has momentum and anything that gains momentum can easily roll over the innocent and threatening alike.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Fighting is an action; it can be justifiable in extremis. War is fighting that has momentum and anything that gains momentum can easily roll over the innocent and threatening alike.

---

Could a nation not be in extremis? Individuals fighting would not have saved the Rwandan Tutsis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Fighting is an action; it can be justifiable in extremis. War is fighting that has momentum and anything that gains momentum can easily roll over the innocent and threatening alike.

---

Could a nation not be in extremis? Individuals fighting would not have saved the Rwandan Tutsis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I (like others) strongly recommend you read up on the culture of Japan during the time of WWII and try not to think in terms of how you would have liked for them to be instead of how they actually were.

---

quote:

---

Of course the Japanese still to this day have problems admitting their sins as well, which says something about how their mindset was and is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I (like others) strongly recommend you read up on the culture of Japan during the time of WWII and try not to think in terms of how you would have liked for them to be instead of how they actually were.

---

This makes no sense. I have repeatedly agree that darkness was well entrenched ON ALL SIDES.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I (like others) strongly recommend you read up on the culture of Japan during the time of WWII and try not to think in terms of how you would have liked for them to be instead of how they actually were.

---

This makes no sense. I have repeatedly agree that darkness was well entrenched ON ALL SIDES.

---

And me and Mad Geo are disagreeing with you. That is the point. You are claiming the allies were as dark as the Nazis and the Japanese (at that time). We are contesting that, and suggesting that you read to inform yourself of your mistake.

I do not, and never will, believe that the British, Americans, Australians, Poles, Czecs, New Zealanders, Africans, Indians, Canadians, free French, Belgians, and all others who comprised "the allies" were at any time guilty of the darkness perpetrated by the Nazis and the Japanese (of that time), regardless of what happened after WW2 ended (which was the initial justification you gave for your view) or how the war itself ended.

---

quote:

---

Precise figures are not available but the firebombing and nuclear bombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March, 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August, 1945, may have killed more than one million Japanese civilians. Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey put the figures at 330,000 people killed, 476,000 injured, 8.5 million people made homeless and 2.5 million buildings destroyed. Nearly half the built-up areas of sixty-four cities were totally destroyed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can we move on to something more useful than a repetition? No-one is going to win this argument, any more than anyone actually "wins" a war.

---

Indeed

The thing about WWII is that, as a fight against the Nazi's tis often brought up as the closest thing to a just war when it is a lot more complicated than "the guys in the white hats vrs the nasty nazis".

But yeah...2 different view so lets move on....

Are there any other candidates for a "just" war?
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

So: WW2 had some aspects of a "just" war, but war in its nature can never be just as a whole.

---

Thanks, Horseman Bree, for stating so clearly what I've been struggling with for so long. Cheers, OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

Are there any other candidates for a "just" war?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Notably, very notably, there has been virtually no insurgency after the fact AND the allies have been asked to continue its presence as a military protector there, which is a pretty good indicator that the people of Afghanistan were not disappointed with the outcome of the Just War.

---

quote:

---

the expectation that the argument is, because we do not have Heaven on earth then we will deny that hell (Taliban and Axis Powers) can be dealt with on earth, through war, by the people that are trying their best to do the right thing.

---

quote:

---

Just because we are human does not mean we should stop trying to slay demons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Yes, I would venture that Afghanistan was a Just War. We went in to remove a regime that harbored the people that led 9-11. The regime was clearly morally bankrupt and as aweful to its own citizens as it was to ours.

---

Two good points lead me to two questions. As I recall, the US asked Afghanistan to hand over any 9-11 suspects, and Afghanistan refused. Hence the invasion. Assuming I've got that right, since the invasion, have there been any arrests, trials or convictions connected with 9-11 of suspects captured in Afghanistan?

My second question is why was it not worth invading Afghanistan, BEFORE 9-11, if it was such an awful regime? There were 14 million women suffering under the rule of the Taliban*, but to cynical me, it looks like that wasn't anyone's problem until thousands of Americans were killed.

Cheers, OliviaG

*I'm embarrassed to admit that, of all things, I was also really bitter about the Buddhas. If you see my sense of perspective anywhere, let me know.
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Now of course, because the U.S. and other involved have problems, are not saintly, and therefore will surely not measure up to the Teapot School of War Theory this will also be debated.

---

I'm quite sure, to some, 9/11 was no justification whatsoever for Afghanistan. I would agree, however, that Afghanistan was a just war, especially given the attempts to avoid civilian casualties (not 100% proof but at least the intention was to be 100% proof).

Iraq, however, isn't in the same league. I have to confess to considering the notion of removing Sadam as being just, given what he did to his own people, but it just seems to have all gone so horribly wrong, which is a real shame and so sad for those Iraqis who longed to be free and in charge of their own country's destiny. Having said that, perhaps civil war is an awful but necessary part of their destiny? It's been a part of British history and American history and French history (and many histories).
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
There were 14 million women suffering under the rule of the Taliban*, but to cynical me, it looks like that wasn't anyone's problem until thousands of Americans were killed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Yes, I would venture that Afghanistan was a Just War. We went in to remove a regime that harbored the people that led 9-11. The regime was clearly morally bankrupt and as aweful to its own citizens as it was to ours.

---

Two good points lead me to two questions. As I recall, the US asked Afghanistan to hand over any 9-11 suspects, and Afghanistan refused. Hence the invasion. Assuming I've got that right, since the invasion, have there been any arrests, trials or convictions connected with 9-11 of suspects captured in Afghanistan?

My second question is why was it not worth invading Afghanistan, BEFORE 9-11, if it was such an awful regime? There were 14 million women suffering under the rule of the Taliban*, but to cynical me, it looks like that wasn't anyone's problem until thousands of Americans were killed.

Cheers, OliviaG

*I'm embarrassed to admit that, of all things, I was also really bitter about the Buddhas. If you see my sense of perspective anywhere, let me know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
I wonder something. Could the outside world have done anything to stop this? I heard at the time there were indicators that things were heating up, but 'no-one' took the situation on board. Often America et al are criticised for intervening militarily in situations external to their own national boundaries, but would this have been an exception? It's hypothetical, I know, because the slaughter happened. But, well, I just wonder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Fighting is an action; it can be justifiable in extremis. War is fighting that has momentum and anything that gains momentum can easily roll over the innocent and threatening alike.

---

Could a nation not be in extremis? Individuals fighting would not have saved the Rwandan Tutsis.

---

A nation, like a corporation, is not really a person, no matter how many laws claim otherwise so a nation cannot be in extremis. If you need to fight, fight, and constantly evaluate what you are fighting for, rather than get sucked into a "war" which is a construct into which fighting fits but which is treated as if it has goals of its own as a cover for abuses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
This doesn't make the war less just than it was (or wasn't) but rather suggests claims about what it achieved should be made with some humility.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I can't think of any just war. Oddly, although I execrate Mrs Thatcher and all her works, the Falklands War was pretty close to being just.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Except that the Taliban are still alive and kicking and killing people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
This doesn't make the war less just than it was (or wasn't) but rather suggests claims about what it achieved should be made with some humility.

John

---

Humility is overrated. I'd rather have someone tell me their accomplishments, even if they are not a "perfect" accomplishment, than lie to me and hide them like a coward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Madgeo:
[quote] So in Teapotland, if you had 999 humans and a demon on one side, and 1000 demons on another than the 999 humans should not kill the thousand demons for fear of the one in their midst, and be slain by the 1000. Yeah that makes sense.

---

If that made sense why did it take me several read-throughs to get what you were saying?!

You argument is fallacious Geo, it is not 1000 demons vrs 999 humans and 1 demon, it is two sides both motivated by a spirit of darkness. One side is more subtle and less heavy handed but given their behaviour (consider also shooting “cowards”) to try and suggest this was a war between the just and the unjust is so far into delusion as to be not surprising when you later say: I'm glad those Taliban demons are dead. . They were not demons, they were people deluded by demons, and your attitude is so far from the love of god, finding gladness in the death of others, I wonder on who it is you serve yourself.

quote:

---

Humility is overrated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mdijon:
[quote] If Rwanda was not in extremis in 1994, your definition lets you down. It strikes me as nonsense to dispute this on the basis of using a definition that insists only an individual can be in extremis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It was one of the most shameful periods in the UN's history. And the slaughter of Tutsis (and some Hutus) reached a million, I think. I was in Uganda at the time; people stopped eating fish from lake Victoria for nearly half a year.

The US, the UK and Europe stood by and watched. Well, actually some European governments helped supply arms to the Hutu army.

Doing something about that would have required a just war - or at least a justifiable war. And that's what the RPF fought. Of course it was ugly, and the RPF soldiers did their own share of retaliation.... but they were admirably restrained in comparison with what they were fighting, and considering the resources they had to ensure discipline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
The people of Rwanda are the nation of Rwanda.

The individual people of Rwanda each doing their best to protect their own were ineffective in stopping the genocide. It was only the advance of the RPF army that stopped the genocide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
and your attitude is so far from the love of god, finding gladness in the death of others, I wonder on who it is you serve yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
and your attitude is so far from the love of god, finding gladness in the death of others, I wonder on who it is you serve yourself.

---

Isn't this a bit personal, Teapot?

---

quote:

---

I don't think anyone on here finds gladness in the death of others.

---

quote:

---

advocates of hatred and terror have to be stopped and the only way to stop them is by force, as was evidenced in Rwanda.

---

quote:

---

Yet I know you will disagree and, as such, you give the impression of appeasement, of condoning hideous acts of tyrany, of turning away and walking on the other side of the road.

That may not be how you view things, but it is certainly how your position comes across on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
and your attitude is so far from the love of god, finding gladness in the death of others, I wonder on who it is you serve yourself.

---

Isn't this a bit personal, Teapot?

---

It is personal Littlelady. It’s a response to a personal statement from Madgeo that I'm glad those Taliban demons are dead. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Except MG's statement wasn't directed at you personally; whereas yours was directed at MG personally.

---

quote:

---

On the issue of fighting, you have said that, in effect, hand to hand combat can be just (one to one fighting) so long as the motives of those fighting are not the same: namely, the defender is not angry but in fact is fighting out of love.

---

quote:

---

If I have understood your position correctly then I would suggest it is an impossible one to justify because no-one knows the intentions of anyone. Sometimes, not even the person themselves is aware of their intentions. So judging whether a fight or a war is just based solely upon the intentions of individuals is totally unrealistic, and you would indeed be advocating a 'pass by on the other side' position in that instance.

---

By the same standard marriage is also impossible

quote:

---

I believe, for example, that had I witnessed the slaughter in the Rwandan church and had I had a gun in my hands at the time, knowing the way I get when I see injustice happening and how much violence upsets me, I would be very likely to shoot the killers on sight.

---

quote:

---

Yes I would be angry - they had slaughtered unarmed, innocent people in front of my eyes. But also I would be afraid - that they would go on and do exactly the same thing to someone else. In a volatile situation as the Rwandan slaughter was, there is no time to be nice, to sit in court and pass laws, to call in a negotiator. Sometimes, spur of the moment decisions have to be taken in order to save lives from people determined to kill with impunity. So far as I can see, your position does not allow for such a situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

I believe, for example, that had I witnessed the slaughter in the Rwandan church and had I had a gun in my hands at the time, knowing the way I get when I see injustice happening and how much violence upsets me, I would be very likely to shoot the killers on sight.

---

“Judge not, that ye be not judged”

“Love your enemy”

quote:

---

Yes I would be angry - they had slaughtered unarmed, innocent people in front of my eyes. But also I would be afraid - that they would go on and do exactly the same thing to someone else. In a volatile situation as the Rwandan slaughter was, there is no time to be nice, to sit in court and pass laws, to call in a negotiator. Sometimes, spur of the moment decisions have to be taken in order to save lives from people determined to kill with impunity. So far as I can see, your position does not allow for such a situation.

---

“Seek ye first the kingdom of god” and if in the love of god you will do what is right. If, however, you embrace the spirit of rage you will not.

---

Nah. That doesn't wash I'm afraid. If I had just witnessed a slaughter and there was a possibility of further slaughter, I am perfectly within my rights to judge the slaughterers as killers. And stop them. If that means shooting them down, so be it. Rage and anger are totally different. And my anger would be against the hideous atrocity I had just witnessed. If Jesus can overturn tables and call the Pharisees names, I can shoot some killers before they can kill again. I'm sure God would agree.

No-one knows what goes on in the minds of others. The minute they think they do, they've made a mistake, imo. Remember the Yorkshire Ripper? He was apparently in a successful marriage. His wife had no idea what her husband was, however. So even marriages don't work in the way you suggest, Teapot. A lot is based on trust - and ignorance!
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Rage and anger are totally different. And my anger would be against the hideous atrocity I had just witnessed. If Jesus can overturn tables and call the Pharisees names, I can shoot some killers before they can kill again. I'm sure God would agree.

---

Yours maybe, but not mine

quote:

---

No-one knows what goes on in the minds of others. The minute they think they do, they've made a mistake, imo. Remember the Yorkshire Ripper? He was apparently in a successful marriage. His wife had no idea what her husband was, however. So even marriages don't work in the way you suggest, Teapot. A lot is based on trust - and ignorance!

---

You must be fun to live with!

When you look in the mirror do you see ?
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
The people of Rwanda are the nation of Rwanda.

The individual people of Rwanda each doing their best to protect their own were ineffective in stopping the genocide. It was only the advance of the RPF army that stopped the genocide.

---

I wonder on what attrocities were done in return... Given how hard it is to find a "Just" war I would hazard a guess that the reaction was probably abusive as well.

Fighting for the love of someone you want to defend is just. Fighting for the hatred of someone you want to kill is not.

---

I expect many of the RPF had relatives still alive in Kigali who they wanted to save from murder. Given the conduct of the RPF since, they do seem to have behaved very well. The current tutsi president is very even handed.

I accuse you of the following reasoning;

1) There is no just war
2) It cannot be a just war if people hate or commit atrocities during or after the war.
3) The RPF, since they seem to have been fighting a real evil, must have been motivated by hate, and committed atrocities, else I might be wrong about 1).

And this from someone who doesn't do hypotheticals.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Teapot

Can I just be clear about what you're saying here? I'm a bit slow sometimes.

Are you saying that if the only way to stop the slaughter of innocents (i.e., non-combatant civilians, including many defenceless women and children as for example in the Rwandan genocide) is to take organised armed resistance (i.e., form an effective fighting army) then it is better to let the slaughter tke place than resist in this way?

Better, to take another example, to let "The Lord's Resistance Army" carry out its vile attrocites (or only take personal, unorganised, self defence measures which it is clear will be unable to stop them) than to form an army to fight them effectively?

Just trying to clear up what we're all saying.

CB
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 
Mdijon,

You do things you way Mdijon, I’ll do things my way, and let our “fruit” determine which kind of tree we are and which spirit each serves.


 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Teapot

Can I just be clear about what you're saying here? I'm a bit slow sometimes.

Are you saying that if the only way to stop the slaughter of innocents (i.e., non-combatant civilians, including many defenceless women and children as for example in the Rwandan genocide) is to take organised armed resistance (i.e., form an effective fighting army) then it is better to let the slaughter take place than resist in this way?

---

I have yet to see an army that is not formed for fear and hatred, nor one that neither:
[*] treats people like cogs in a machine.
Or
[*] is nothing but a lynch mob

The closest I have seen to avoiding such has been in small groups of friends and neighbours in a militia defending their homes and loved ones.

Confusing isn’t it, that I am neither pro-war nor pacifist, but instead pro fighting, in groups of people where bound by personal relationships and where neither cold hierarchy nor mob mind takes precedence over personal relationship with the holy spirit, in order to defend hearth and heart-bound. Doesn’t fit any of the usual shoeboxes.

[ 06. January 2006, 10:19: Message edited by: Teapot ]
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
Confusing isn’t it, that I am neither pro-war nor pacifist, but instead pro fighting, in groups of people where bound by personal relationships and where neither cold hierarchy nor mob mind takes precedence over personal relationship with the holy spirit, in order to defend hearth and heart-bound. Doesn’t fit any of the usual shoeboxes.

---

It does, actually, yes. The shoebox of personal preference. And, of course, a guarantee that you'll never be in a position where you can say to yourself that by not fighting you were actually making a mistake.
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
When you look in the mirror do you see ?

---

Not at all. I see a generally happy, bubbly and friendly person looking back at me.

Not that I look in the mirror very often, I hasten to add. Only when absolutely necessary!
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
...a guarantee that you'll never be in a position where you can say to yourself that by not fighting you were actually making a mistake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
… better to:

a) form/engage as "good" an army as can be got to defeat a force such as the LRA or to

b) take brave individual/small militia action if it is certain to be ineffectual through lack of proper organisation (as was unquestioably the case in Rwanda).

---

quote:

---

Better that we let, e.g., the LRA continue their mind-bogglingly wicked activities without effective opposition than to form any kind of army to defeat them?

---

Better that in seeking to kill a monster we don’t become one (and no that is not an advocacy for Nietzsche )
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
What about the "All that evil requires to prosper is that the good do nothing"?

I don't see what the word trap was, and frankly I'd agree with Chestorbelloc. Unless by "small militia" you would include the RPF.... always possible, I suppose.
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
We disagree. This may not represent darkness of soul, ears of cotton or blindness on my part - it may simply be a different thought process and different outcome.

I maintain these things can be approached by rational debate.

---

We each understand according to the spirit we align with Mdijon, and those who serve the holy spirit will not generally be understood by those who do not, except where open to salvation, as the human mind is limited and can only hold one alignment with one spirit at a time.

I disagree about your rational debate line. Words can act as rough signposts, nothing more. It is Epiphany (on this day of all I get to say this lol ) that salvation and the understanding of the holy comes as in a mind overwhelmed by darkness there is no way of comprehending light except by an act of grace.


 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Are you saying anyone who disagrees with you doesn't serve the holy spirit?
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
We disagree. This may not represent darkness of soul, ears of cotton or blindness on my part - it may simply be a different thought process and different outcome.

I maintain these things can be approached by rational debate.

---

We each understand according to the spirit we align with Mdijon, and those who serve the holy spirit will not generally be understood by those who do not, except where open to salvation, as the human mind is limited and can only hold one alignment with one spirit at a time.

---

quote:

---

“Judge not, that ye be not judged”

---

You do seem to be doing an awful lot of judging of other contributors' spirits.

Said in a spirit of love, of course.

[ 06. January 2006, 11:29: Message edited by: Littlelady ]
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
This time I'll be clear as I can be, Teapot. My question to you is this:

If large-scale, organised armed resistance (i.e.the forming/engaging of an army) were the only way effectively to stop such a body as the LRA, do you think it would be better to let the LRA continue their activities without that effective resistance?

I admit that part of my eagerness to get you to give a straight answer to this reasonable and utterly relevant question is that I want you to admit to the consequences or limitations of your argument about the evil of armies. But whether or not you think my motivation is fair, plese anwer the question for the sake of clarity.
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
You do seem to be doing an awful lot of judging of other contributors' spirits.

---

Judging as understanding, yes. Judging as condemning, no. Which do you think the gospel of love is referring to?

Mdijon,

Know a tree by its fruit Mdijon. Do you deny “Judge not, that ye be not judged”? Do you deny “love your enemy”? Do you deny “Love god, and love your neighbour as yourself, the law and prophets hangs upon these”? Do you claim that the force of man can fight evil, rather than the love of god? Man without the holy spirit cannot destroy evil, he can only replace it with a new evil.

So fond you are of wordtraps you remind me of a Pharisee lol

If you disagree with the holy spirit, you do not serve her. If you agree with her, you do.

quote:

---

originally poster by Chesterbelloc:
This time I'll be clear as I can be, Teapot. My question to you is this:

If large-scale, organised armed resistance (i.e.the forming/engaging of an army) were the only way effectively to stop such a body as the LRA, do you think it would be better to let the LRA continue their activities without that effective resistance?

I admit that part of my eagerness to get you to give a straight answer to this reasonable and utterly relevant question is that I want you to admit to the consequences or limitations of your argument about the evil of armies. But whether or not you think my motivation is fair, plese anwer the question for the sake of clarity.

---

Lol That is like asking a Christian “if there were not a god…..”. You do not fight evil by doing evil and I have yet to see an example of a “large-scale, organised armed resistance” that has brought about good rather than simply a less heavy-handed evil.

You would have me fight a battle on your contrived landscape which fails to include within it the rock I base my position on.

It is better to be good and lose than evil and win. Or to put it another way; it is better to serve in heaven than rule in hell.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
What is evil about armed police or troops putting an end to genocide or torture?

Do you just deny that, for example, a UN force could have stamped out the genocide in Rwanda, or an effective armed force could remove/destroy/seriously debilitate the evil that is the LRA?

You seem to need to argue that no army/armed police force in principle could put an end to such unspeakable horror as the LRA propounds (or at least, not without the army compounding the evil themselves) for your postion to cohere - but I don't see your argument for that assertion.

What is evil about stopping the LRA? Where is the evidence that a properly trained, disciplined and deployed army could not, in principle at least, stop the LRA?

You seem to be excusing yourself from answering my question by claiming that it is unfairly framed to exclude your view that army-fighting could not put an end to evil because it would itself be evil. But I completely fail to see why armed force of this type must be seen as "an evil not to be countenanced" in the face of the horrific evil of brutalising, torturing, mutilating, enslaving and raping children on a huge and calculated scale, and then making those same children perform those acts on others on pain of death.

Please, Teapot - do you believe that deploying an army (say, an international UN force) is worse than allowing these attrocities to happen? If so, why? If there is a genuinely effective "third way", between allowing the LRA to carry on and deploying organised armed force against them, what is it?
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester:
What is evil about armed police or troops putting an end to genocide or torture?

---

quote:

---

Do you just deny that, for example, a UN force could have stamped out the genocide in Rwanda, or an effective armed force could remove/destroy/seriously debilitate the evil that is the LRA?

---

quote:

---

Please, Teapot - do you believe that deploying an army (say, an international UN force) is worse than allowing these atrocities to happen? If so, why? If there is a genuinely effective "third way", between allowing the LRA to carry on and deploying organised armed force against them, what is it?

---

There is no “worse” there is only evil of various at types, and good. There are a great many ways of doing evil, some subtle, some not so, but if they are not about returning you to an awareness of the love of god, under the auspices of the holy spirit, then they remain evil no matter what.

For example: The people of Europe were freed from the yoke of Nazism by the allies….only to become slaves to the global greed market of consumerism, which relies on their buy sweatshop goods and living their lives as serfs to the robber barons of capitalism, the evil brought by the allies. An evil was defeated….and replaced by another, one with a less heavy hand but an evil non-the-less.

And before you ask, no I am not a communist/socialist.
 

---

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :
 
Do you go after the Pacifists with such enthusiasm too?
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
The people of Europe were freed from the yoke of Nazism by the allies….only to become slaves to the global greed market of consumerism, which relies on their buy sweatshop goods and living their lives as serfs to the robber barons of capitalism, the evil brought by the allies. An evil was defeated….and replaced by another, one with a less heavy hand but an evil non-the-less.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester:
What is evil about armed police or troops putting an end to genocide or torture?

---

Nothing, so long as they don’t replace it with another evil nor achieve it by evil means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Do you just deny that, for example, a UN force could have stamped out the genocide in Rwanda, or an effective armed force could remove/destroy/seriously debilitate the evil that is the LRA?

---

Nope I don’t deny that. The question is, could that have replaced it with Good, or just another evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
There is no “worse” there is only evil of various at types, and good. There are a great many ways of doing evil, some subtle, some not so, but if they are not about returning you to an awareness of the love of god, under the auspices of the holy spirit, then they remain evil no matter what.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
For example: The people of Europe were freed from the yoke of Nazism by the allies….only to become slaves to the global greed market of consumerism, which relies on their buy sweatshop goods and living their lives as serfs to the robber barons of capitalism, the evil brought by the allies. An evil was defeated….and replaced by another, one with a less heavy hand but an evil non-the-less.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
And before you ask, no I am not a communist/socialist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester:
Good - some progress there, since you were arguing before that such a force would be "formed for fear and hatred" and would be "nothing but a lynch mob".

---

quote:

---

They would be going it some to fail to replace organised and systematic torture, mutilation and genocide with something better, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

No evil is preferrable to another? That's patently false. To equate the "evil" involved in taking reasonable military action against the likes of the LRA with the evil of the LRA itself is ... actaully, words fail me.
"Evil"/wickedness does not operate by an on/off switch - there are degrees of moral wrong. This is a fact which I would have thought too obvious to need stating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Do you own the computer you are presently typing on? In which case, you are also part of the "evil brought by the allies". Are you typing on a computer at work? If so then you are indulging in the "evil brought by the allies", because you are using a computer bought within the system which is "evil brought by the allies".

---

quote:

---

Please, Teapot. This cannot be a serious argument for whether or not the slaughter in Rwanda should have been avoided (preferably) or stopped by a well disciplined army.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester:
Good - some progress there, since you were arguing before that such a force would be "formed for fear and hatred" and would be "nothing but a lynch mob".

---

Did I say that of all groups Chester? I recall a certain 3rd option I mentioned….

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:
I have yet to see an army that is not formed for fear and hatred, nor one that neither:
[*] treats people like cogs in a machine.
Or
[*] is nothing but a lynch mob

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

They would be going it some to fail to replace organised and systematic torture, mutilation and genocide with something better, don't you think?

---

Again you fall into the better/worse trap. It is either good, or it isn’t.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

No evil is preferrable to another? That's patently false. To equate the "evil" involved in taking reasonable military action against the likes of the LRA with the evil of the LRA itself is ... actaully, words fail me.
"Evil"/wickedness does not operate by an on/off switch - there are degrees of moral wrong. This is a fact which I would have thought too obvious to need stating.

---

Nope, something is either in accord with the Holy Spirit or it isn’t. There is no such thing as a preferable evil except in a universe where there is no holy spirit. We don’t live in that universe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:
Do you own the computer you are presently typing on? In which case, you are also part of the "evil brought by the allies". Are you typing on a computer at work? If so then you are indulging in the "evil brought by the allies", because you are using a computer bought within the system which is "evil brought by the allies".

---

Indeed I do own and use a computer. Consumerism is about how you use, not what you use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Yes, I would venture that Afghanistan was a Just War. We went in to remove a regime that harbored the people that led 9-11. The regime was clearly morally bankrupt and as aweful to its own citizens as it was to ours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
To my knowledge, the suspects captured in Afghanistan were either (justly) slain as enemy combatants or are imprisoned in Guantanamo (and for those, rightly so, I will not speak for those that are questionable however, as I am not in favor of the Getmo system as currently practiced and that's a whole nother topic).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Except that the Taliban are still alive and kicking and killing people like schoolteachers who dare teach girls at all -- two deaths so far in the last fortnight alone. And that in a province supposedly fully under the control of the government -- where less than a third of the schools have been able to open, because of fear of what the Taliban will do to anyone who dares teach in them.

---

• 1. It must be called by a lawful authority
• 2. It must have a just cause (Right intention)
• 3. It must be fought in a just manner (e.g. should only aim to kill combatants, not civilians (unless indirectly, the law of 'double effect')
• 4. The cost of fighting must not outweigh the cost of not fighting (Prudential judgement) - consequences

My scoring:

Rationale one - capture 9-11 conspirators
Passes #1 - only technically, as I'm unconvinced that war is an appropriate response to crime
Flunks #2 - the USA never had intention of trying anyone for these crimes
Flunks #3 - based on the treatment of those captured
#4 - any answer I gave would be pure speculation

Rationale two - Bad Taliban
Not final, coursework still in progress
Passes #1 and #2, but I find the timing suspect
Passes #3
#4 - as above

By my math, it looks like Afghanistan could be considered a Just War based on rationale two, but not on rationale one. However, the Just War criteria assume that every effort has been made to resolve the conflict without war. What was the USA doing before 9-11 to improve the status of women in Afghanistan? Sadly, it seems to me that rationale one was the only one that REALLY mattered, and rationale two was secondary. If Teapot is still around, we'll soon find out if the weaknesses of rationale one cancel out the strengths of rationale two.

If anyone is still here, how would you score the rationales for Afghanistan against these criteria? OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Wow, in my cold-numbed-mind I am having a hard time following all that, although I am sure it is very cogent. Let me shoot at a few things I see there,

You said you thought that enemy combatants might be subjected to trial. Ultimately even with as little faith as I have in this administration, I think they will. But to me the more important thing that Afghanistan War did for us was my first posit that many if not most of the bad bastards have been "(justly) slain as enemy combatants". To me that was the largest benefit of that war. If benefit is the right word. If (IF) we keep cutting off the heads of an organization, it will stop to work as efficiently, even an organization that divides itself into "cells" such as Al Quida. They can only lose so much leadership before it starts to be less or non-functional.

I also question how much of the Taliban is "alive and kicking". For every case that JH or someone puts forth I can probably put forth one where the Taliban's acts were dismantled.

We cannot change a culture overnight. We can only hope to help them change themselves as much as they want us to.

I really do wonder if we should even be in the business of changing their culture anyway. It's kinda like the Prime Directive in Star Trek The Prime Directive dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept totally secret.

While we are forced to stop them from enabling people that hurt us (Al Queda) perhaps we really should minimize how much we screw with their culture no matter how distateful that culture may be to us.

That view is potentially fully of double standards I realize but their are nuances to it that I think are relevant so that's why I throw it out there.
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Wow, in my cold-numbed-mind I am having a hard time following all that, although I am sure it is very cogent. Let me shoot at a few things I see there,

---

And there have been numerous demands on your time... something about the Teapot Dome scandal, was it?

quote:

---

But to me the more important thing that Afghanistan War did for us was my first posit that many if not most of the bad bastards have been "(justly) slain as enemy combatants".

---

quote:

---

We cannot change a culture overnight. We can only hope to help them change themselves as much as they want us to.

---

quote:

---

I really do wonder if we should even be in the business of changing their culture anyway. It's kinda like the Prime Directive in Star Trek The Prime Directive dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept totally secret.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0