- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
- Thread starter
- #21
"An act of violence that takes another's life is ALWAYS an extreme measure, regardless who does it. The real question here is: Is using an extreme meausre justified?"
ill agree to that.. and does this justification have everything to do with perspective and identity rather than simple us vs them good vs evil? Did those Japanese civilians come to applaud two nukes?
of course not. even if WE in america can rationalize dropping them all day long. likewise, even if WE can rationalize Israel calling for an assasination it still makes us no better than those we accuse of acting like terrorists when THEY do the same thing.
In your first example, we dropped two nukes on Japan. It was estimated it would cost 1M US lives to invade and take Japan. The tactic used was strategically sound to accomplish the mission: defeat Japan with least amount of loss to US lives.
and.. the US can easily rationalize such a position.. as can muslims who blow themselves up in a jewish crowd rather than form an army to be wiped out by superior american weapons. Are you willing to rationalize 9/11 in the same fashion you rationalize hiroshima and nagasaki? of course not.. even if you admit that taking life is always an extreme measure. were Jap civs worth less than OUR civs? are Iranian leaders more qualified for assasination than OUR leaders?
In your second, it is also tactically and strategically sound to fight a war on someone else's soil rather than your own. Would you prefer those civilian casualties be US casualties?
I would prefere to play by the same standard we expect others to play by. Again, rationalization aside.. WE are the only nation to ever USE a nuke against civs. Our moral authority on acceptable means to an end is seriously lacking. Would I prefere US soil or American dead? of course not.. JUST LIKE japan and muslims dont their own either. perspective, sir.. rationalized violence against civs is still violence against civs.
The cold, hard fact is yes. When it comes to war, the lives of the enemy have less value than the lives of your own forces and/or your own civilians.
even if the stated purpose of the conflict to begin with is liberating those same civs? so, likewise, civilians in japan and iraq are less important just because we are the side doing the killing rather than the dying? how imperialistic. seems that tyrant always believes theri own shit doesnt stink. Im sorry, I am not willing to rationalize away civs for convenience any more that I am willing to rationalalize OUR dead civilians. especially when every other excuse for said conflict relies on some moral authority concerning treatment of civs as opposed to their treatment under muslim rulers.
What kind of TV they watch or shoes they wear is irrelevant. The ideals you represent vs the ideals the enemy represents is what matters.
What ideal sdid japanese civilians represent that is not similarly represented by those who died in 9/11?
"Torture has not been rationalized. The use of coersion has been. Here's some rationalization for you to think about ..."
you are splitting hairs according to what you want to use as nomenclature. I bet I could have you admitting that you love to cuddle with men if I had enough waterboard time with you. we can rationalize torture just liek saddam did. call it tomAto if you want to...
You're the Company Gunny. You capture an enemy combatant who can tell you how and where the forces he belongs to are deployed. You have a mission, and you are on a schedule. There are 150 Marines counting on YOU to bring them home alive so they can see Momma and the kids again.
such is the price for claiming a moral authority and trumpeting your righteousness over those who already admit to killing and torture. the end result is exactly the same. all you are doing is rationalizing it. so, then, a vietnamese prison camp has every right to have tortured john mccain for information as to the military strategy of the US? turnabout, sir.
Do you stick a Ka-Bar to that enemy soldiers throat and threaten to cut it if he doesn't talk?
Damned right you do. EVERY time.
just like john mccain's hanoi vacation? would THEY too have the exact same motivations as you do to rationalize torture? How do you figure that OUR behaviour is any better than theirs if the product is the EXACT SAME while preserving the moral authority that has been the siren that brought us the war? so, if he STILL doesnt talk do we take plays from Udays playbook? maybe a little ramboesque car battary on the metal boxsprings?
It seems that your "kill them first" perspective is exactly why we dont see too many natives eating dinner at mcdonalds these days.
"NAPALM is an effective weapon. It's been used since the close of WWII."
I guess so too are airliners into buildings, eh?
"Perspective? I'm not willing to place the concerns of my enemy before my own. I don't go out and choose these enemies. They choose me. I'm not willing to sacrifice my life nor what I believe in so my enemy can have his."
do you think that an iraqi (or vitnamese for that domino theory matter) might ask you when, exactly, they chose you as an enemy? Are you trying to whipe your hands like pontius pilot here? When did Iraq declare war agasint the US again? vietnam? japanese cits who are a DIRECT equivilent to our 9/11 civs?
"You're trying to confuse apples-n-oranges. There is no "do as I say not as I do, and relegating fighting for what you believe in to cheerleading is trivializing."
does that apply to muslims who hyjack planes too?
The Trail of Tears, was no more barbaric than US Civil War prison camps where the white man treated his own barbarically by today's standards.
indeed.. fair enough.. I think we have covered white mans willingness to kill those unlike himself... however, I daresay that the manifest destiny involved with western expansion is a LOT different than the self regulating of a succession from our early American government.
What double standard would that be?
that it is OK for Israel to call for an assasination while iran would be deemed a terrorist state for the EXACT SAME message? that Israel has been allowed to have nukes with Americas authority while we are the only nation to ever USE nukes and have no gumption about invading muslim nations? any of that sound familiar?
I'd say since one of the US's stated goals is to support democracy world-wide, there is no double standard.
support democracy as long as the voting results are to our liing, ala, the result of democracy in Palestine AND IRAN?
I'd say apologizing for a people who have thrived on nothing but hatred, murder and anti-semitism for 50+ years WOULD be a double standard wfor anyone who believes in democracy.
as opposed to open hatred of muslims in America and the total blind support of a nation that has a host of suspicious activities? As opposed to the open aparthied and total refusal to consider the palestinian reality? By ignoring how WE would react to ATZLAN while calling anything that is not a rabid support for zionism an antisemite? You can hate them, dude.. but they can hate you too.. in the end, Id rather not let this social darwinsim destroy a culture like we destroyed OUR indegenous cultures.
I already addressed this.
I didnt see you admit that THOSE civs were just as innocent of the machine of their culture as OUR civs were on 9/11... We cannot act like tyrants while selling wars on the excuse of removing tyrants.
And apologizing for your enemy makes you a perfect fall guy for them, and when they're done with you, you're just as dead as the next body.
this is why I choose to consider the source of conflict rather than merely let god sort em out. I guess im humanitarian that way.. peace isnt always convenient but I think it is preferable than nuking civilians and using cluster bombs, napalm and random rationalized collateral damage to forward the ideals of democracy. meet the new boss, smae as the old boss.
__________________
