Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Should we simply acknowledge that modern warfare, WW2 forward, means total war, and total war means kill the enemy, the enemy's family, destroy them utterly, and stop worrying about who is dead? It would make it simpler. The pretense of moral and just war simply vanishes if we consider that war is about totally defeating the enemy and that eliminating non-combatants is simply a means to doing that.

Is there really a difference, say, in lining villagers up and shooting them and bombing them to death? Or starving them? Dead is dead. Maybe a bullet is more humane than a bomb or starvation?

---

There you go. Straight to the extreme position.

Why don't you read the book I mentioned, or are you worried that it might cause you to rethink your ideas and perhaps challenge your simplictic, sentimental, holier-than-thou morals, that nobody else has or understands, because you have to be sooooo sentitive.

[ 04. December 2012, 21:05: Message edited by: deano ]

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
But the fact remains that this attack , and the one that followed 3 days later, did achieve what it set out to achieve . Namely to end a bloody war that doubtless had several more extremely bloody months, (or even years), to run.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
One has to wonder whether killing a large number of Japanese people very, very quickly (and then leaving a lot more to die over the course of decades) is actually better than killing a large number of Japanese people over several more months or years.

It might be better for SOME people, but probably not for the Japanese.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
they had a means of ending the killing and chose not to.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Lots of people say shit like "I'd rather die than surrender". Only the nutters actually mean it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
One has to wonder whether killing a large number of Japanese people very, very quickly (and then leaving a lot more to die over the course of decades) is actually better than killing a large number of Japanese people over several more months or years.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkeylizard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Lots of people say shit like "I'd rather die than surrender". Only the nutters actually mean it.

---

That depends greatly on what one thinks lies on the other side of surrender.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkeylizard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Lots of people say shit like "I'd rather die than surrender". Only the nutters actually mean it.

---

That depends greatly on what one thinks lies on the other side of surrender.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
I do strongly disagree with your notion that surrender is better than death on the battlefield.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Such enemies seldom exist outside of fantasy novels though.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
What about Gaddafi's threat of "no mercy" as he advanced to recapture Benghazi. Or the Hutus massacring Tutsis in Rwanda.

---

quote:

---

Or, since we are discussing WW2, Hitler's final solution.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I doubt my family would have been in any of the categories taken to the concentration camps, so I'd have no reason to fight on that front.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Let us not neglect the horrific firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I doubt my family would have been in any of the categories taken to the concentration camps, so I'd have no reason to fight on that front.

---

You're familiar with that "and then they came for me" poem?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
That's what Churchill said too.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm sure web forum hosts and admins would have to "assist police with their enquiries" too.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I doubt my family would have been in any of the categories taken to the concentration camps, so I'd have no reason to fight on that front.

I may not have had as good a life under Hitler as I would have under Churchill, but at least I'd have had a life rather than being shot to shit in some stupid fucking battle...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
You're familiar with that "and then they came for me" poem?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I am fairly certain that a number of my relatives wish they had sacrificed themselves for other people so as to have avoided having to live as they did under Hitler and afterwards.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I am fairly certain that a number of my relatives wish they had sacrificed themselves for other people so as to have avoided having to live as they did under Hitler and afterwards.

---

Perhaps. But because they didn't sacrifice themselves they survived to have lives and descendents, ultimately including you.

Isn't that better? Would they really have traded every single moment of joy and happiness in their subsequent lives for the sake of some other jerks they'd never even met? Do they wish they'd deprived their children and grandchildren of the very possibility of existence for such a cause?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Would they really have traded every single moment of joy and happiness in their subsequent lives for the sake of some other jerks they'd never even met?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Omg I feel so much better.

---

That's nice, love, but the Vichy French weren't on the Allied side. The clue's in the name.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
And probably the world would be a worse place if such people weren't in it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Would they really have traded every single moment of joy and happiness in their subsequent lives for the sake of some other jerks they'd never even met? Do they wish they'd deprived their children and grandchildren of the very possibility of existence for such a cause?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
And probably the world would be a worse place if such people weren't in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's part of my point - once they've done it, they're not in the world any more.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
The option of surrendering is only available if you are confident that your enemy will not kill you afterwards.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Reminds me of another saying - if staying alive is all that matters then staying alive doesn't matter any more.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I already said I don't know alot about ww2.

---

Well there's no argument on that score dear.

I never said children were not injured or killed in the war. In fact if you read ALL my posts you will see that I comment on that frequently, and that was horrific. Inevitable in war, but horrific.
My point was that the allies never made children a specific target. There was nothing the allies did that was comparable to separating Jewish children form their parents and killing them because they were incapable of working in the camps.

To wilfully misrepresent what I said exposes you as a rather pathetic fool, incapable of reading anything beyond a soundbite. Are you a half-wit, dim-wit or just plain witless?

I thank God that people like you have no influence on policy or public opinion. It's people like you who would roll over and turn a blind eye to what the Nazi's did (it's a thread about WWII, so Godels Law need not apply!) that led to the collaborating VICHY French, you ignorant piece of shit.

You're as thick as two short planks with a telly inbetween.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Lots and lots of other things matter to me. It's just that I can't do, be or take pleasure in any of them if I'm dead.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
[Staying alive] often isn't a person's sole priority in life.

---

quote:

---

Hence humanity's long history of the spilling of sacrificial blood.

---

quote:

---

A well-known campaigner of human rights in America, when told of the dangers he faced, said ---'It's better to live a short life about something than a long life about nothing'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
For it's all in how you spin it. "Potential diminishment of quality" versus "life-long anhedonia, guilt and regret". We all have different value systems.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
A well-known campaigner of human rights in America, when told of the dangers he faced, said ---'It's better to live a short life about something than a long life about nothing'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I disagree with him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawking Dawkins:
What about "Operation Chastise" in 1943 when the British Airforce bombed the Mohne dam. In the full knowledge of the devastation it would cause to the civilian population. 1,600 people killed. Leading to a change in the Geneva convention in 1977, banning the bombing of dams and installations where it posed a significant threat to the civilian population.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
What I am suggesting,is that one of the things we should learn *as well* as appeasement being ineffective, is area bombing civilians and using atom bombs are actions that are morally wrong. More particularly, we should not allow ourselves to be talked into believing its OK because there is a war on.

---

That's the fundamental weakness of your position. Each decision has to be taken on its own merits.

For you to preclude any course of action before a war starts is playting into the hands of an enemy who knows exactly what you will opr will not do and can set their strategy accordingly.

The atom bomb decision was taken after consideration of a multitude of factors.

The area bombing of Japanese cities was the only effective way of stopping the japanese producing munitions, with which they killed allied soldiers and civilians including children.

You are simply going "Nope", and ignoring those factors, and are doing so not on the basis of an objective review of the circumstances and legalities available at the time, but from the comfortable position of a 21st Century democracy.

You have signed-up to a simplistic set of sentimental politics and "better-than-you" morals and are now applying them inapproprately using nothing more than hindsight, emotion and subjectivity, and I for one find it offensive, purile and irrational.

I never fail to be bemused by those members of the Labour party who believe the party should be a protest party, and really shouldn't be in Government. Their reasoning is that way, they can maintain an ideological purity in their condemnation of everyone, whereas in power they have to compromise their positions in accordance with real-world conditions.

I think you are your ilk are similar. You need people to make the terrible, awful choices, so that you can pontificate from the moral high-ground, safe and secure in the knowledge that you will never be called to account for your naiveté.

---

Absolutely agree Deano

For every allied soldier risking his life in combat, for the dependents of those soldiers, for every enslaved, starving and tortured POW held by the Japanese, for every comfort woman being raped day and night by the Japanese, for the Singaporeans and Malaysians suffering brutal "purification" and countless others, I can accept that the atom bomb was a necessary evil that ended the war much more quickly and with fewer allied losses than would otherwise be the case.

Doublethink, you can't justify any and every horrible or immoral decision on the bases "there's a war on", I agree. Neither can you judge the morality of decisions without considering context, sometimes killing enemy civilians is a terrible but morally justifiable thing to do.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
What I am suggesting,is that one of the things we should learn *as well* as appeasement being ineffective, is area bombing civilians and using atom bombs are actions that are morally wrong. More particularly, we should not allow ourselves to be talked into believing its OK because there is a war on.

---

That's the fundamental weakness of your position. Each decision has to be taken on its own merits.

For you to preclude any course of action before a war starts is playting into the hands of an enemy who knows exactly what you will opr will not do and can set their strategy accordingly.

The atom bomb decision was taken after consideration of a multitude of factors.

The area bombing of Japanese cities was the only effective way of stopping the japanese producing munitions, with which they killed allied soldiers and civilians including children.

You are simply going "Nope", and ignoring those factors, and are doing so not on the basis of an objective review of the circumstances and legalities available at the time, but from the comfortable position of a 21st Century democracy.

You have signed-up to a simplistic set of sentimental politics and "better-than-you" morals and are now applying them inapproprately using nothing more than hindsight, emotion and subjectivity, and I for one find it offensive, purile and irrational.

I never fail to be bemused by those members of the Labour party who believe the party should be a protest party, and really shouldn't be in Government. Their reasoning is that way, they can maintain an ideological purity in their condemnation of everyone, whereas in power they have to compromise their positions in accordance with real-world conditions.

I think you are your ilk are similar. You need people to make the terrible, awful choices, so that you can pontificate from the moral high-ground, safe and secure in the knowledge that you will never be called to account for your naiveté.

---

Absolutely agree Deano

For every allied soldier risking his life in combat, for the dependents of those soldiers, for every enslaved, starving and tortured POW held by the Japanese, for every comfort woman being raped day and night by the Japanese, for the Singaporeans and Malaysians suffering brutal "purification" and countless others, I can accept that the atom bomb was a necessary evil that ended the war much more quickly and with fewer allied losses than would otherwise be the case.

Doublethink, you can't justify any and every horrible or immoral decision on the basis "there's a war on", I agree. Neither can you judge the morality of decisions without considering context, sometimes killing enemy civilians is a terrible but morally justifiable thing to do.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
[qb]What I am suggesting,is that one of the things we should learn *as well* as appeasement being ineffective, is area bombing civilians and using atom bombs are actions that are morally wrong. More particularly, we should not allow ourselves to be talked into believing its OK because there is a war on.

---

That's the fundamental weakness of your position. Each decision has to be taken on its own merits.

For you to preclude any course of action before a war starts is playting into the hands of an enemy who knows exactly what you will opr will not do and can set their strategy accordingly.

The atom bomb decision was taken after consideration of a multitude of factors.

The area bombing of Japanese cities was the only effective way of stopping the japanese producing munitions, with which they killed allied soldiers and civilians including children.

You are simply going "Nope", and ignoring those factors, and are doing so not on the basis of an objective review of the circumstances and legalities available at the time, but from the comfortable position of a 21st Century democracy.

You have signed-up to a simplistic set of sentimental politics and "better-than-you" morals and are now applying them inapproprately using nothing more than hindsight, emotion and subjectivity, and I for one find it offensive, purile and irrational.

I never fail to be bemused by those members of the Labour party who believe the party should be a protest party, and really shouldn't be in Government. Their reasoning is that way, they can maintain an ideological purity in their condemnation of everyone, whereas in power they have to compromise their positions in accordance with real-world conditions.

I think you are your ilk are similar. You need people to make the terrible, awful choices, so that you can pontificate from the moral high-ground, safe and secure in the knowledge that you will never be called to account for your naiveté.

---

Absolutely agree Deano

For every allied soldier risking his life in combat, for the dependents of those soldiers, for every enslaved, starving and tortured POW held by the Japanese, for every comfort woman being raped day and night by the Japanese, for the Singaporeans and Malaysians suffering brutal "purification" and countless others, I can accept that the atom bomb was a necessary evil that ended the war much more quickly and with fewer allied losses than would otherwise be the case.

Doublethink, you can't justify any and every horrible or immoral decision on the basis "there's a war on", I agree. Neither can you judge the morality of decisions without considering context, sometimes killing enemy civilians is a terrible but morally justifiable thing to do.