EPTMorality and war do not go hand in hand.
Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 36
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
Morality and war do not go hand in hand. | ||
|
Faronel
United States658 Posts
On December 10 2008 14:00 FortuneSyn wrote: You cannot generalize the entire civilian population of a nation as "crazy ass people". That is a stellar example of ignorance to culture and racism. What if I generalized all americans as "redneck idiots" and thus considered that sufficient reasons to nuke one of your cities? If you think that analogy is flawed feel free to apply it to any other war. "Mass Suicides The civilian population on Saipan numbered close to 30,000. Twenty-two thousand were Japanese -- though most came from the prefecture of Okinawa and were ethnically distinct from other Japanese. The rest consisted of Korean slave laborers and the original inhabitants of the island -- the Carolinians and the Chamorro. As the battle of Saipan reached its final days, Japanese soldiers and panicked civilians made their way north to Marpi Point. Here, despite repeated calls by the U.S. military to surrender, civilians chose death by jumping off cliffs or drowning themselves in the sea. They had been led to believe that surrender would mean murder, rape and torture at the hands of U.S. forces." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/peopleevents/p_shiroma.html I call that pretty darn crazy... dunno about you. Although i must admit when i wrote "crazy ass people" i was kind of exaggerating, but i still mean it to some extent. Let me clarify one more thing, "led to believe that surrender would mean murder, rape and torture at the hands of U.S. forces." So imagine that only, for millions of people in japan who would gladly fight if it meant to stop their parents, friends, family from being "tortured/raped/murdered" | ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
People are branded traitors if they don't support their country in a war effort. Saying it's ok to kill civilians because they support your enemies war effort is stupid. The bombs weren't justified, but neither was any other part of the war. I agree there were worse atrocities in the war, but that doesn't justify the bombs. None of it is justified. | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
In regards to this talk about the bombing of military centres being appropriate and civillian centres being off limits, however: "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki Also, I believe the military was so very severely crippled at this time that there were civillian militias in place to protect their homeland. | ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
But that's not my point, my point is killing people is never justified. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
Many japanese are so loyal to their country, they would believe and listen to everything they say. Soldiers will fight to the death, creating heavy casualties for both the allies and japan. Women and children would be forced to kill themself because they believed if they were ever caught by the allies, they would be raped and turned into slave (worse than living in hell). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#Suicide_order_controversy Here is an evidence that some of those japanese were so eager to fight to the last man, they started a coup and held their own emperor under house arrest just to force the war to continue. And this is after the nuclear bombs has already been dropped, it just shows that they were so believe in their honorable death they don't value their own life and the ones around them, can you imagine what would happen if allies didn't use the best they've got to make absolute sure that japan surrender? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_Incident | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
So much misinfo in here it's sickening. At least the poll results show this is the mostly reasonable community I have grown to love. =P | ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
| ||
|
TheTyranid
Russian Federation4333 Posts
On December 10 2008 16:42 KissBlade wrote: Yes. We sure showed Russia who's cock was bigger. Not a lot of black people in Russia.  | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
Aganist:The use of atomic bombs where unjustified! For: WTF they where totally justified to end the war *Examples of how much the Japaneses where unwilling to surrender* Aganist:BUT why did America have to go for unconditional surrender For: Because if you are battling an aggressive nation you must break their back or else they will think they where right they just lost the war. You must make them belief that what they did was wrong. Aganist: Dropping of the bombs could have been avoided it was all to keep the russian out! fucking conspiracy For: SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING DICK ASS INTERNET BRAT WHO CALL HIMSELF aZn when it's asian GO SUCK ON YOUR ANIME JAPAN LOVING COCK AND CUT YOURSELF I ALREADY WENT OVER THE REASON IN THE 1ST RESPONSE STFU YEAH WE DIDN'T WANT THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE PART OF JAPAN BUT THAT WASN'T THE MAIN ISSUE GO GET SHOT AT A GRASSY NOEL. In the end they just both end up believing they were right this is not a discussion or debate this is just people pulling bias out of their ass. | ||
|
SpiralArchitect
United States2116 Posts
On December 10 2008 13:52 FortuneSyn wrote: Get real man. Targeting civilians is not acceptable in the world we live in today. Sure call them the "SCVs" of a military but that does not make it morally correct to target them during war. Your objective viewpoint of how A produces to B so A must be equally responsible is completely unrealistic. I assume if you are ok with targeting civilians you are also ok with torture or with the 1000 car bombs we see every day in the middle east? This is the 3rd time you have referred to the difference between 9/11 and total war to which i have already previously showed acknowledgment of it twice. Read the posts you are replying to. Citizens and armies are related to the extent that citizens supply the army with weapons. It does NOT INCLUDE decisions on declaring war and no, the vote that the citizens cast 2 years ago DOES NOT make innocent children accountable for the decisions that government X took. There is no abandoning your country. You live there and most are forced to stay in there. Their homes their lives are there. They don't have the choice to simply move to oh switzerland or something till the war is over. Once again this is another example of your completely unrealistic arguments based on simplified view over war. Let's say your country goes to war with Canada, but you are against this decision. OK THEN so tell me how are you going to make an active decision on not taking part of this war with Canada? Since according your argument living in US = partaking in the war, do you really really really think its realistic to pack your own bags, say LOLSUP to your mortgage, and go live in Mexico until the war is over? I would love to read your visa application. First off I never said that killing civilians was justified, I said it is a viable military tactic and it is going to be used from now until the world ends. Humans do lots of stuff which isnt justified by human nature but by our own construction. Ok. So you think no civilians have died in the Iraq war? Civilians are part of the casualties that a country has to go through when they are in a war. What do you think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki werent military targets? That sucks that civilians lived there man but in war this is how it goes, this isnt a simplified view of war its a realistic one and your crazy if you dont think thats just the way it is. Is it justified? Of course not, war cannot be justified rationally in the mind of a human but it is part of the world and the way it works. There is a huge difference between targeting civilians and torture. Lets simplify this even further with some good old fashioned examples. 1. Firebombing Tokyo - As soon as the allies were in range of Tokyo they began to carpet bomb the living shit out of a certain area of Tokyo. Was it a military base? Was it the governments capital building? No they bombed commercial and residential area because there are only so many factories to bomb and beyond that what is the most vital thing to making weapons? Men. They eliminated the work force of Tokyo and by doing so they made the Japanese weaker. Did innocent men women and children die in these bombings? Of course they did. Thats war. 2. The Bombing of Berlin - Originally the allies only targeted military installations and railways which would directly affect their production rates, among other non civilian targets. Sooner or later that policy was abandoned and the allies carpet bombed the living shit out of Berlin and other major cities in Germany. Thousands of innocent people die. Thats war. Citizens only supply the army with weapons? Citizens not only supply the army with weapons they are the army, they feed the army, they clothe, equip and generally fund its every movement... Besides that you cant just hand a gun to a guy and say "Oh wow I didnt know he was going to shoot anyone, oh well I just supplied the gun and now thats hes in trouble I am gonna forget this ever happened." Citizens shouldnt pay taxes if they dont support the war effort, they should move out of the country if they dont support their politicians to a degree they think that these things will happen. Does that mean they leave their mortgage, family and so forth? No. Politicians are tricky I know, but if Hitler was going up against Barack last year and he won I think I would probably be able to figure it out that I needed to leave right about the time he started hating on the Jews. You seem to think that wars can be fought on some large field in the middle of each continent where nobody is around. Thats not how it happens. People are afraid to leave their homes behind? Wow thats too bad because an army of a couple hundred thousand men is marching towards you. So whats it gonna be? Pack your shit and run or have your house burned down AND lose your family after they are violated by the oncoming force? You pick. Dont just think that people can absolve themselves of all responsibility when shit hits the fan. I am assuming that you voted for Obama (for arguments sake), after placing your vote of faith in him and supporting him and his policies he goes to war. So you have two choices, retain all your precious belongings or find a way out of the country before shit hits the fan. I know some people cant do this but unfortunately that is the nature of war, when your country enters a war with another this is one of the things that the government must accept. Everyone of the politicians in the United States is elected that means somewhere down the line that politician represents a group of people. You cant just turn your back on that person when things arent going your way, but if you dont want to get caught up in a war then dont support a crazy ass politician that is going to start one. I never said citizens are as responsible as politicians, generals and any other key proponents of the war. If they were they would be tried for war crimes and shot. So would soldiers. Fortunately the world is a bit more rational than that. But living in a country with a war going on is not fair, it not meant to be and unfortunately thats just the way it is. People get forced into things they dont want to do all the time but to some degree everyone has to shoulder the responsibility, you cant just play it cool till one side wins and hope you come out on top. | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On December 10 2008 15:45 Ancestral wrote: I disagree with your analysis, although my only credential is getting a 5 on the IB History HL test. :eyeroll: I got a perfect score on the essay portion of my History Diploma exam and have studied european history at the post-secondary level. This is irrelevent posturing. If you have a point to make, make it. Argueing credentials on the internet is fucking stupid and unverifiable anyway. On December 10 2008 15:45 Ancestral wrote: Based on that class, the Third Reich never seemed unstoppable, and was doomed to failure as soon as Russia and the United States were its enemies. But that's not my point, my point is killing people is never justified. The US changed the game a good deal, but was completely out of the picture initially. And the primary reason Russia was never successfully invaded was due to luck of the weather. The Russians could not come close to competing with the superior technology and training of the German forces. They had manpower and little else. If Germany had managed to invade the UK successfully there would have been no base for US forces. The real problem they faced on the Eastern front (initially- everything changed later on) was advancement through harsh terrain and weather. They could easily hold the Eastern front once the UK was secured and they could focus their energy on it. And once the continent was consolidated and Hitler could have tapped into the newfound infrastructure and manpower he would have been unstoppable. It would have been a domino effect- if the UK fell, I honestly believe all of Europe (at the very least) would be under the control of the 3rd reich today. That said, this is all speculation. We're subject not only to our own inclinations but what we've been taught and exposed to. History can be interpreted in many different ways. A couple of things I am certian of, though: -the allies were under much more direct threat when the UK was bombing Berlin than when the US dropped the A-bombs -if you believe that killing people is never justified then there's no point in having this debate with you anyhow | ||
|
FortuneSyn
1826 Posts
In case it got lost in all this time-wasting text, the point of my argument is that targeting civilians to win a war is NOT an acceptable strategy. The death of civilians as collateral damage is simply an unfortunate consequence of war. Generalizing a city as a military target is horseshit. Just because a city provides some sort of production/communications/whatever does not mean the whole city is a military target. There are schools, shops, whatever you name it facilities that have nothing to do with the war. If you want to target military targets in a city, then bomb specific factories/etc, not the entirety of a city. US nuking Japan falls into the category of targeting civilians as a strategy to win a war. Of course civilians are killed in the Iraq invasion, but that is collateral damage. Civilians bombed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT collateral damage. | ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
I've recently been to the peace memorial museum in Hiroshima, and believe me, it was not pretty. I dare say, most of you have no idea of what actually happened. It's like saying, you know Africa is bad, but you don't really know how bad it actually is unless you've been there in person. The goal of the bomb was to inflict as much damage as possible, Hiroshima was chosen because it was a populated port city with lots of civilians (although US did thankfully choose not to bomb Kyoto and Tokyo). I honestly think this is a form of genocide (I recently watched a documentary on genocide as well  ), which is no different from the holocaust. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17719 Posts
Dropping a nuke when no one else has it to show your strength during the war - good idea. Dropping it on civilian targets - very bad idea. Unfortunately, when it comes to war the victor decides how certain things are to be looked upon thus holocaust = bad, nuking = good. But this debate is pointless since Baal already said everything there was to say in one of the first posts. | ||
|
CoL_Drake
Germany455 Posts
they would all kill like the last man standing and millions and millions from american and japanese would die so they bomb 1. nuke but japan wont kapitulate so they bomb 2,. nuke and won  its better so then the other way ... trust me xD the only funny thing is they didnt have a 3. bomb xD ofc 2 big importent citys but better then tokio ... | ||
|
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
NO | ||
|
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides. The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that. by attacking civilians LOL | ||
|
kNife
Malaysia70 Posts
| ||
|
Skew
United States1019 Posts
But none of that means I don't want to cry when I watch documentaries about what happened there, and it doesn't mean I don't feel anger towards this country for doing it. | ||
| ||
