Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

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 ]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posted                      

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!

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posted                      

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.

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

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

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posted                      

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

---

Posted                      

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.



--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posted                       

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).

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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!

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posted                      

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

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posted                      

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!

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posted                      

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! ]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posted                          

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?

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                          

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?

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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!

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posted                      

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!

---

Posted                          

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.

---