Posted                      

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.

---

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".

---

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".

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

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

Posted                      

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).

---

Posted                      

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....

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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!

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

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

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?

--------------------
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 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

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teapot:

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

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posted                      

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).

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

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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

---

Posted                      

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

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---