Principles of a Just War- Page 2

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 11:51pm

please feel free to point out any hyperbole i used. everything i said was far from exaggerated. so I think you may have so trouble with that.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 11:55pm

"America became no better than any nazi, or any nazi sympathizer."

This statement, even if you believe it is entirely factual, is unnecessarily harsh. Also blowing up the actions of American in the horrible and unjustified deaths of 100,000 in the course of a few isolated actions to the level of 6 million killed in a systematic process of eradication is hyperbole.

ETA: Yet my statement was not directed just to you Zoneace, but to anyone argues here, it is a very, very touchy subject and one in which it is easy to become personally destructive.

Updated On: 11/8/05 at 11:55 PM

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 11:59pm

HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE BEFORE IT BECOMES AN ATROCITY?

IF 100,000+ ISN'T ENOUGH, THEN HOW MANY? 200K? 300? A MILLION? HOW ARE THE LIVES OF THOSE 100 THOUSAND JAPANESE CITIZENS WORTH LESS THAN THE 6MILLION JEWS AND HOMOSEXUALS, AND ALL THE OTHERS THAT WERE KILLED?


seriously, i want to know how we are somehow superior just because it was only 100,000.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 12:04am

Please do not scream at me, that type of atack is exactly the thing I am trying to rationally urge everyone to avoid.

I agree with you on the main points. I have supported your side in this thread. The difference is the process, not the lives. The Nazi system was created and used in ORDER TO kill inocent people. That is a difference in morality.

The murdered innocents in Japan are reprensible, there is no excuse for it, but deciding to lump all the actions together is not going heal any wounds or teach any lessons.

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 12:04 AM

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 12:08am

and the nuclear bomb was created and used to kill people (probably not originally intended to be used on innocent people), and in this case, it was used on innocent people, so i fail to see the distinction. We are the only country in the history of the of the world to use an atomic bomb as a weapon. no one else has EVER DONE THAT. And we didn't even use it on military targets. We dropped them on innocent people. So, when it comes down to it, why does the original purpose of the thing used to kill the innocent people matter? The innocent people were still killed.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 12:16am

Your points are good ones, I agree with many of them.

The process, the idea, of genocide, systematic eradication of a group, that is the difference. I am not arguing what the US did was just, right, or any of those things. It was, in my mind, an act of evil on par with any in history. The system incorporated by the Nazi regime was something worse.

It is still, despite that, a seperate case from the Nazi situation. In the process of putting them together and out of righteous indignation you are making an argument that can be seen as hurtful and unwaranted.

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 12:16 AM

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 12:22am

i guess the difference lies in out understanding of the killing of a innocent person. I put no distinction between any killing of an innocent person, but you some how put more value on the killing of an innocent person when they are killed because of a specific system designed to kill them.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 12:30am

I feel that that is an extreme oversimplification of my statements in order to make it seem that my position has an intrinsic immorality. Which is more what I am arguing, people of good concience can come down on different sides of this.

There are many shades to the discussion, it is like so much an area in which there is some grey.

It is like the discussion of shooting down a plane that would be used as a bomb like the ones on 9-11. Innocent people will die, but less than if the plane hits the target. But what if inside the plane a pilot wrests control back at the last moment. Who is commiting the worst attrocity.

I simply feel it is too complicated to make blanket moral statements and the intentions of the people involved need to be considered.

Somehow it strikes me that you now think I condone the actions of America or that I do not care about the deaths America has caused, that would be patently untrue.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 12:36am

I am all about shades of grey, but the murder or a 100,000 innocent japanese civilians is black and white. Killing 100,000 american citizens was not the way to prevent the deaths of more americans (as with your example of shooting down an highjacked plane that could be used as a weapon). There were other ways. MANY OTHER WAYS. and that is the black and white part. Shooting down a plane to prevent it's use in a terrorist attack is gray. A 100,000 innocent civillians in no way involved in an attack on a US military base is black and white.

See, there is a difference.

I am an moral relativist, really, I am, but there is a limit to the relativism.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 12:46am

The action itself is black and white to me as well. The way we discuss understand and use it is grey.

I wasn't using that as an example about American lives, but rather Japanese lives, as an invasion of the mainland would have been devastating.

I wish to reiterate that I understand your points, and agree with many. It is the manner of expression that can be seen as problematic. I am going to have to leave the computer, but I ask once more that you try to understand that there is some relativity in how people see this and that good, moral people may have objections to your comment.

It has been a lively debate, if I have said anything that people have taken offense to please let me know, (as I am sure some have and will read all of this)

I have tried to express my outrage at the situation and not any people who feel differently, whether like Zoneace that the acts are evil in the utmost, or if they fully support the action.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 9:54am

smartpenguin,
You should read some narratives from former Nazis, or from those who were close with Hitler. Their intentions were never to create genocide. In fact, I'm fairly sure Hitler's intention wasn't to do that. They were nationalists who would do anything for their country to be purified and complete. So, their killing wasn't motivated by hate, it was motivated by a love of their country.

Intention has literally NOTHING to do with morality. It is wrong to kill people -- regardless of your intention -- whether you believe you are fighting a just war or not.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 10:38am

I have read many narratives by former Nazis, many, especially Hitler, were very adamently supporting genocide. (although that concept did not exist at the time) The purification of thier country was motivated by nationalism and economic interests, but they decided the way to accomplish that was to irradicate entire subpopulations. The added fact of the German aggressive expansion and the continued erradication of subpopulations in the countries they took over are also important to note.

The Germans, and Japaneese were agressively expansive and decimating large populations in country after country, while I do not believe in American moral superiority or most cases of just war, when a country is refusing diplomacy because thier agenda is one of total control of the world, how is fighting back not a moral response?

Again I am not saying killing is moral, but that there are levels of immorality involved.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 10:45am

Ok, so you admit it is immoral.

But you want to do it anyway? I'm so cofused by that thought.

Especially since there are always non-violent ways to gain the same end (encouaging and supporting civil disobedience being the highest on the list).

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 10:56am

Civil Disobedience is a valid option in most cases.
I am not saying all of the options were exhausted in World War II, but many people here and elsewhere were doing those very things. Amoung them the German Theologian Reinhold Neiburh, who wound up killed in Germany trying to rouse civil disobedience.

There are many complications and other factors that play into this, but the main factor in this case is that despite a growing disobedience both the Germans and Japaneese were agressively and actively creating havoc on a world scale. It seems there most be some kind of moral responsibility to stop that destruction, both inside and outside of thier countries.

I do not "want to do it" I am saying that there are differing degrees on a moral plane.
I am also saying that simply labeling someone as immoral because of support of a just cause is not an effective way to make what I do believe are valid points.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 11:03am

The point is valid on its face:

You admit something is immoral, we share the belief that doing immoral things is bad, therefore, I asked you to qualify. I know you believe in the differing degrees of a moral plain...but, be specific:

When is something immoral enough that it shouldn't be done? In fact, why even label it immoral if it is the best option? Wouldn't that make it "moral"?

I agree that it is our moral responsibility to curb destruction. The trick is to not let the means justify the ends. Utilitarianism does not account for a loss of morality...which is what makes it problematic. I'd also say that those who encouraged disobedience in Germany pre-WWII were far and few between -- and they had no governmental support. I would contend we should be spending a GREAT deal of money on these sorts of projects instead of the money we spend on our phallic devices.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 11:07am

the war in the pacific was coming to an end and the allies wanted to avoid a messy invasion of japan but they didn't HAVE to drop the bomb. i was lead to believe this in school--that they felt they had to drop it to save american lives, etc but now there is evidence that the bomb wasd dropped in large part to send an intimidating message to the russians --our allies who were taking their part of europe. the japanese emperor was ready to surrender.
i am fascinated that the japanese have carried on. how can they continue to do business with a country that nuked them?

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 11:17am

I believe there are cases in which an action is immoral and reprhensible has to be done, it is still immoral but it is "right."

I am saying that the breaking down of the German juggernault and the horribly destructive Japanesses war machine were necessary, to let them continue was to be complicit in the action. Much of the Civil Disobedience in Germany pre-WWII is what put the Nazis in power. There were better choices that may have helped, but at some point those choices were lost.

On the question of the nuclear bomb I was discussing with Zone, I think its use was horrible, immoral and wrong.

I would agree that we should be spending more on reistance and dissent, and less on war. I also agree that we should have done that historically. Yet, with the circumstances as they were I also believe it became necessary to engage the "other" in WWII directly.

ETA: Garland slipped in, I just want to emphasize: I am not, have not, and will not ever be in support of the dropping of the bomb. That use was horrible and destructive, was unneccesary and is a blight on American that will not be erased

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 11:17 AM

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 11:27am

The Dalai Lama would agree with you. smart. In a talk at Stanford University last Friday entitled, "The Heart of Nonviolence", he told the audience that "The allied victory in World War II saved Western civilization."


link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051105/ts_afp/ustibetchina_051105043044

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 12:21pm

"ETA: Garland slipped in, I just want to emphasize: I am not, have not, and will not ever be in support of the dropping of the bomb. That use was horrible and destructive, was unneccesary and is a blight on American that will not be erased"

and yet, it's still not as bad as the nazi's killing jews in europe?

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 12:27pm

We have been through this, I think it was different. I never said either were acceptable. I also continue to stand by my main point, that it is how we argue these things that is of utmost conern.

I can't go back through this, I have tried to present a case for how people of morality can disagree on these issues, and that we need to be careful on them.

[yodamarie78]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 12:48pm

"but they didn't HAVE to drop the bomb. i was lead to believe this in school"

I find the way that the bombing is presented not only in American schools, but also in other cultural areas very interesting. In a class about children's literature we looked at books from all over the world that deal with war. Many of the books from other country's dealt with the bombing, none of the American books did.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 1:05pm

I love that one with the little girl and her parents, it had me bawling, what was it called?

Updated On: 11/9/05 at 01:05 PM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 2:52pm

I'm shocked at the Dalai Lama! I couldn't disagree more with him. Wow.

The pacifist answer to the Dalai Lama would be twofold: first, even if a substantial minority of the German people practiced pacifism, Hitler would never have gained power; because through noncooperation by trade unions and other groups (as in the nearly-successful Kapp putsch which was frustrated by these methods shortly after World War I) his rise to power could have been prevented. Once he gained power -- through the cooperation of millions of Germans and many foreign financiers -- it would still have been possible to have overthrown him through noncooperation (although obviously more difficult). Although World War II seemed to destroy the German tyranny, it did so only at the expense of vastly expanding another despotism. One need only look at Euro-American culture and see our violence-centric cultures.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 3:35pm

yes penguin, you have said that neither was acceptable, and i saw that, but yet, you seem to keep infering that the Nazi's actions were some how LESS acceptable. You are placing a value on the acceptability, which leads me to infer that you think there was an acceptable level innocent japanese people that america could killed. I however, keep stating, neither was acceptable, and neither was any more or less acceptable than the other.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 11/9/05 at 4:10pm

this is a link to a commentary on dharmic war and fighting terrorism as described in the Bhagavad Gita.
commentary