xris;149231 wrote:

Whats right in war? morals of war are defined by convention. Whats right in war is inexcusable in peace. The greater good, the way to win. War is a bloody affair it cant be sanitized.

We have made a few rules about war, but you are right, war will remain a bloody affair that can only be justified in the context of the greater good.

Morals and a sense of honor have a place in war, but the greater good must outweigh all. It would have been a tragedy to allow Hitler to win because we were too "moral" to do what was necessary.

The idea that civilians are somehow separate from the nation, in time of war, seems fallacious to me. After all even the simple farmer is assisting the war effort. The benefits of victory will be enjoyed by all.

Yes, you are expressing the concept of "total war". But how do small children, or very elderly people fit into you view?

What do want me to say? its obvious you wont accept what I have said? It was justifiable, not justice..get it?

justifiable   
-adjective
capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible: justifiable homicide.

now answer my darned question.

civilians have always been included in war. I deplore the bombings but its a bit blinkered when we hear complaints about America when Japan killed twice as many civilians. I hate the necessity of war and the death of just one child is sickening.

Sure it is offensive to our sensibilities, but small children grow up to become soldiers. What elderly people should get and do get are two different things. I would imagine that when I'm older I will still be in my country's court.

I don't want to sound harsh and unfeeling, but mankind has known for a long time that this is the nature of war.

Today, when the threat seems less urgent, many arise to question our governments choices. If you remember 9-12 , we all were ready to wipe someone off the face of the earth. In the latter days of ww2 most Americans had suffered loss and we're more than willing to end the war as quickly as possible.

If that is so, then the "terrorists" are right to attack U.S. and other civilians. They are trying to win, and are not overly concerned with the means that they employ to achieve their objective.

I happen to think that they are wrong in that attitude, which, of course, means that I think that you are wrong to have that same attitude. Collateral damage should be minimized, not thought of as something trivial. Ironically, such damage typically seems to work against those who do it, as, for example, the Nazi bombing of London seems to have made the British more angry and therefore more determined to fight them. Killing someone's family is, not surprisingly, not usually a good way to get him to lay down his weapon and make peace with you. So even if you don't care about the means, you might still want to minimize collateral damage, as it may help one win the war. (There is a pragmatic rather than a moral argument for you, since you seem to think that the lives of people are so trivial that killing innocent children in order to achieve one's objective is not problematic.)

You are clearly confused.


Justifiable | Define Justifiable at Dictionary.com

If something is justifiable, it is just. You are evidently misusing words.





What question are you referring to?





You write as if I were attempting to say that the U.S. government was worse than the Japanese government during WWII. I said no such thing, nor did I imply any such thing, nor did I mean any such thing. When saying that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, that does not entail supposing that anything the Japanese government or military did was right, nor does it trivialize anything that the Japanese government did.

Your comments seem to suggest that you believe that if someone is not the worst, then it is wrong to condemn that someone. That is, of course, ridiculous, as many people may be wrong simultaneously. Very often, that is the case, and they may be wrong in differing amounts. But some of them being more wrong than others does not make the less wrong ones right.

But small children do not grow up quickly enough to be a factor in the war in which they are killed or maimed. So I don't think that is much of an excuse. I don't understand what you said about the elderly. And whether you support your country is irrelevant. .

It is not, I think, true that total war has always been the norm. It has become so more and more in modern times. But that people have known about it does not make it all right, does it? People know about a lot of immoral things.

Sure it is offensive to our sensibilities, but small children grow up to become soldiers.

What elderly people should get and do get are two different things. I would imagine that when I'm older I will still be in my country's court.

I don't want to sound harsh and unfeeling, but mankind has known for a long time that this is the nature of war.

Today, when the threat seems less urgent, many arise to question our governments choices. If you remember 9-12 , we all were ready to wipe someone off the face of the earth. In the latter days of ww2 most Americans had suffered loss and we're more than willing to end the war as quickly as possible.

Terrorism is not a recognised state, for one thing. Their goals seem to be entirely the destruction of state, rather than preservation of state.

Your assumption of my personal views is , as usual , wrong and in keeping with your inflamatory nature.

Perhaps you can show me how the nature of war is not the nature of war.

I agree with you that killing civilians serves to be counter productive in most cases. Although, the mongols used the tactic to great effect in their strategy.

Two points:

First, in this case, the Japanese children of that era did not grow up and become soldiers who fought against the U.S., so it is factually irrelevant..

Second, and more importantly, it is condemning people not for something that they have done, but for something that they will do (or are believed will do) in the future. Perhaps you should be executed now, not for anything you have done, but because you are predicted to do something bad in the future. Would that be justice?.

So, you think the terrorists are right to attack civilians? After all, though it may sound harsh and unfeeling, that is the nature of the conflict, and mankind has known this for a long time..

If it were true that ending it as soon as possible were really what mattered, the U.S. would have negotiated Japan's surrender before that time, as they had asked for terms of surrender. Since the U.S. did not do that, obviously, ending the war as quickly as possible was not paramount..

No one said that "terrorism" was a governmental state. It is a means to a goal, not a government. "Terrorists" are people who use terrorism as a means. As for whether they are connected to a recognized government or not, that is not terribly important. In this case, the ones who destroyed the World Trade Center were supposedly connected with the government of Afghanistan, which is why the U.S. invaded and overthrew that government. And their goals appear to be to maintain (or create) a particular way of life..

War does not necessarily involve the targeting of civilians, so it is not an essential part of war. Your attempt at pretending that it is a tautology that it is part of the nature of war to target civilians is not convincing.

You really are the limit. It was justified but it was not act of justifiable justice..they were not bombed for justice sake, in just manner but it was justified in the terms of ending the war ..I wont say it again, your obviously being obtuse.

...

I don't think your statement is true. For one, the Vietnam war, not just our involvement, went on long enough for many children to become soldiers. Another case could be the hitler youth.

Would you mind saying that in English?

If something is done in a just manner, it is just. If it is not just, it cannot be done in a just manner. But if the ultimate goal of something is just, that does not necessarily mean that a just method will be used to achieve that goal. One may use evil means for the purpose of good goals. But doing so is not just. Nor can it be justified (i.e., it cannot be shown to be just [which is the meaning of "justifiy"] if it is not just). It might be excusable, or understandable, but it cannot be justified.

If you insist on misusing the word "justify", do not be insulting and call others "obtuse" for failing to understand your particular abuse of language. I strongly suggest that you conform your usage of terms to what they ordinarily mean in English, except when you have expressly defined them for a particular purpose. Otherwise, it is you who will be exposed as the one who is being obtuse.

Infants?................

I have been trying to understand the difference ethically, if there is any, between 9/11 and the United States dropping a bomb on Hiroshima.

After 9/11 happened, America got geared up and ready to go fight back against those that had attacked them. My problem with the whole thing is the logic behind it. At the end of WWII America dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to "scare" Japan into dropping out of the war. The definition of terrorism is :

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

Did America not use terrorism ourselves to force Japan out of the war?

America is all geared up against terrorists saying how horrible they are and how they depreciate the value of human society. I agree with this, yet I also find interest in the fact that people so easily forget that we're not much better than they are. When I bring this up in debate the most natural response I get is:

"Well, it's different to us because the attack against America was unprovoked."

I disagree with this statement because 9/11 followed a tumultuous time of America campaigning through the Middle East for our own political reasons. We shook up that region with our own desires and the natural response of the region was to strike back at us. Since most of the countries we influenced (for better or for worse) do not have the military might to stand up against us, they tried to catch our attention by an act of terrorism. When looking at the evidence, we did provoke 9/11 by trying to force our diplomacy on an unstable region without their permission.

Now I do not advocate 9/11 in any way shape or form, I strongly disagree with Al-Qaeda's tactics, however, I also think America unethically went into the Middle East to fight the "war on terrorism" when we ourselves have been terrorists in the past. Am I wrong on this point of view?

I think a better example would be the USA's bombing of Hanoi. As there was no state of war, this was certainly terrorism.

That too, it just furthers my point that America fights against things we have done ourselves in the past without thinking twice about it.

No, because at the time it was a direct self defense reasoning. It all goes back to the definition of terrorism which is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." If someone comes up and mugs you in an alleyway you have every ethical right to defend yourself, but it is unethical to just go up and beat the crap out of a random person on the street because you think they might mug you.

The reasoning behind the Christmas bombing of Hanoi was that North Korea was contemplating backing out of the peace treaty being signed with America. America didn't like this so they bombed Hanoi which was a non military city in an attempt to scare North Korea into sticking with their original intent to sign the treaty.

The bombing of Hiroshima was an act of state terrorism. It was an intentional attack on innocent and defenseless citizens for a political goal.

First of all, the insurgents who blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem killed few since they telephoned and warned the residents of the hotel that it was going to be bombed (hardly the action of terrorists). In the second place, the King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British Army in Palestine. So the insurgents were not attacking civilians. They were attacking military personnel. And, therefore, they could not have been terrorists by definition.