Well, if we are going to tackle this, let it be it's own post.
Japan Japan Japan
I once heard a question that has caused me much serious reflection from that time forth.
"Why is America worried about other countries using the A-bomb when, to date, they are the only country in the world who has used it on civilians?"
I have also heard an American Officer of high rank (at my rinky-dink state college) say that wars are not won until you take it to the civilians. I believe him.
Japan first: Why did we do it? Almost as important as the answer to that question is America's willingness to ASK the question. Think about it.
The theory that makes most sense to me is because we wanted to send a message to Russia. The war was over, Japan was collapsing, and we had our marines ready to invade...BUT... we knew what was going on in Russia and could not afford a new war. Pretty powerful message that started the cold war.
Japan was already establishing democratic movements and the population was ready for a change. That is why after the war they embraced Democracy. Japan got in the war, not for racial ideological reasons like Germany, but because the government KNEW that Western Culture was spreading among it's civilians and they wanted to stamp it out on America's turff....but I digress...this is an ongoing debate, I just told the side I believe.
But there was death. Lots of it. People are willing to kill. How? By disassociation--stamping out empathy. You think anyone could look the people in the eyes, understand the value of life, be emotionally connected and STILL drop the bomb? Only a cold-hearted serial killer could, and there has been enough research to show that serial killers lack empathy.
What was evil about what happened in Spain? We must first look at how they were able to stamp out emotional connections to the victims.
Back to War...IF wars are won by taking it to the civilians, THEN how are terrorists different then us?
That is the question I want to pose. Here is a good place to discuss it. Is 9-11 different then the A-bomb? Is the difference between a terrorist and justified military action defined by who struck first?
There is only ONE exception on how to win a war I can think of...The Iraq War. America is the only country I can think of that was willing to spend so much effort to minimize collateral damage--a far cry from Dresded (which killed more people then both atomic bombs combined).
What are your thoughts on the difference bewteen "us" (any free democratic society) and "them" (terrorists).
I think the willingness to discuss this issue itself sheds light on the answer.
ALTHO I FEEL A DIFFERENCE I CATAGORICALLY STAND BY THAT IT IS **NOT** BECAUSE THEY TARGET CIVILIANS.
Any takers?
my first thought is by not looking at the atrocities as an isolated event, but look at the evolution of ideas, culture, value of humn life, and individual rights. Yeah, America had slaves, killed indians, bombed Dresden, "fill in the blank", but where are we today and hwo did we get there?
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
I personally have always felt that there is very little distinction.
I saw the 9/11 attacks as a brilliant military strike on both our moral and our economy.
The objections to this are twofold:
1. They targeted civilians! Yeah they did. So what? Military strikes have always been justified if they damaged the ability of their opponents to wage war. Hurting our economy is more than enough justification.
2. They aren't part of any nation! Well, yeah, but neither was the United States before they fought for it. I don't see how this makes any difference.
Now this doesn't mean I am apoligizing for the terrorists, in fact, I think that I am a more determined enemy to them because I recognize them for who they are. They aren't "evil-doers". They are people who believe strongly in something and are willing to do whatever it takes to get it. That doesn't mean we should let them have it, but it does no good to label them as evil and treat them as monsters.
They are the enemy, but that doesn't make them evil.
[ March 11, 2004, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Ghost of Xavier ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Two things.
If you think that Japan was becoming more democratic before and during WWII then you do not know history.
Ending the war they was the US did it served several goals. It is very likely that it saved not only tens of thousands of American lives, it also likely saved as many if not more Japaness lives. It also may have very well shown Russia not to mess with us, but that would have been a good thing.
2nd, I can not believe that someone just said that terrorist are not evil.
msquared
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I like the limb you are on Ghost.
"They are the enemy, but that doesn't make them evil."
I agree, we need to look at them as briliant strategest and not just evil people, However, do you believe in the presence of evil on this earth and how would you define it?
If they are not evil, is there ideology evil? Methods are methods, but what about objectives. I feel there is evil at play and evil at work.
My favorite line is Crime and Punishment is ..well, I will put all three translations I have read from different publishers.
"When reason fails, the devil helps."
"When the mind stops working, the devil lends a hand."
"When the mind stops working, the devil gives aid."
There is something about the terrorists ultimate objectives that feels evil to me, of course, I think we need a community definition of "evil" and a community understanding of terrorist's "objectives."
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
msquared
I am feel dissapointed that I am at work and not at home, but trust me...I will be at home soon.
Why does that matter? Because at home lies all the documentation (including names, dates, key players, social movements, government reaction and a whole list of doctorate papers discussing how those movements BEFORE WWII are afecting Japanese history then and today) ready for me to give you as ample references to support my claim.
And I WILL get it for you. But I must say that I am highly amused by: "If you think that Japan was becoming more democratic before and during WWII then you do not know history."
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
Yeah you did hear me right m^2. I hope you aren't shutting your brain off to the rest of the things I said because of that opinion though.
Do you really think that everyone who commits a terrorist act is evil? Thats utter and complete BS. They may be brainwashed, they may be doing horrible horrible things, but why are they evil?
Try for one second to think of why they do what they do. Is it for the sake of killing others like serial killers? No, they are doing it to advance a cause they believe in with all their hearts.
Are they wrong? Most certainly. Should we try to root them out and take away their capability to strike again? Of course.
Are they evil? Maybe some, but certainly not all.
[ March 11, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Ghost of Xavier ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I have to agree with msquared.
Even before Pearl Harbor, Japan had been quite ruthlessly conquering parts of the Asian mainland. It seems far more likely to me that this was imperialist expansion than out of a desire to squash Westernizing influences.
My grandmother, being Japanese, was in Japan during the war. According to her, the Japanese people had no idea that they were losing the war. Furthermore, they had been told that any invading American troops would torture, rape, and/or kill anyone they came across. You have to understand that surrender was not a part of that culture. The projections for island-to-island, cave-to-cave fighting in order to conventionally defeat Japan showed staggering amounts of losses of both Japanese and American soldiers. That's what happens when you have an army, and to some extent, a civilian population, that is willing to die to a man. Dropping the bomb ended the war far sooner and with less loss of life than conventional warfare would have.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Terrorists are not evil. Terrorism can be justified (at least to the extent that any killing can ever be justified). 9/11 and the atomic bomb attack on Japan are both acts of terrorism, in one form or another, because both were deliberate killings of civilians in an attempt to frighten the enemy into submission. 9/11 was unjustified, however, and the atomic bombing of Japan was justified.
The distinction between the two is not a matter of Americans being good and Al Qaeda being evil. The distinction is a matter of judgement. I believe that in some cases the ends justify the means and in some (most) cases they do not - and the difference is a matter of judgement. I think we correctly judged that the after-effects of killing Japanese civilians during WWII was worth what we did, but that al Qaeda was mistaken in thinking their goal in the 9/11 attacks was worth what they did.
WWII America made a better judgement call than Al Qaeda. That is the difference, and it's a difference in wisdom, not a matter of good souls vs. evil souls.
In the Spain case, I think the separatist movement is even LESS of a just cause than Al Qaeda's. They may have thought that it was worth the deaths of those innocents, but I think it was not.
[ March 11, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Where to begin... where to begin.
Let's start with the A-bomb and Japan.
During the island-hopping campaign to push back the Japanese Empire (Co-Prosperity Sphere, whatever), US and Allied Forces had been constantly fighting defenders who had a total disregard for their own lives. The dug-in defenders would fight and scrape for every inch of ground. When it would look desperate, they would mount up a Banzai charge and literally throw a human wave against the Americans.
We suffered heavy casualties. The Japanese defenders usually fought to the last man or close enough for practical purposes.
And these were for podunk little nothing islands. It was troubling, it was bleeding our forces, but the defenses were all for naught. And then we got to Okinawa, our first taste of the Japanese on their own home turf.
There weren't many civilian levies among the Japanese troops, most men who could hold a rifle were already in uniform. Our soldiers waded ashore and into the bloodiest fighting of the war.
Japanese hold-outs in caves would rather be burned by flamethrowers than surrender, even after Japanese-speaking Nisei volunteers in the US Army offered them the most generous of surrender terms. Banzai charges, snipers, booby traps and tunnel complexes were the order of the day for the defenders.
And as the Americans fought through it, the civilian population of Okinawa began doing what it thoughted it needed to do. In the end, hundreds if not more than a thousand killed themselves. I can still remember seeing the footage of a terrified woman in a kimono standing at a cliff's edge, her children clutching at her waist. A cameraman kept his lense on them as an American interpreter pleaded with them. And then the woman pushed her children off the cliff. She looked around, terror in her eyes and jumped off after them.
On the main islands of Japan, children were being given bamboo spears and being taught how to fight the American invaders. Every firearm available was passed out to the public. A call was made to the world that Japan would fight to the last member of its population.
Their recent actions echoed it.
In the Oval Office, Pres. Harry S Truman weighed the use of the "ultimate weapon" against his own fears. He looked at the Japanese threats and the evidence that they would back those words up with the blood of their own citizens. He looked at the casualties American forces had suffered so far in the Pacific. He looked at the casualties the Americans had suffered in Europe and the process of rebuilding that needed to begin there.
Lastly he looked at the Pentagon estimates that said the US could suffer a million casualties or more.
That's when he decided to use the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima. A city was obliterated. The Japanese sent out a tenative request to talk, but did not say anything about surrender. Nagasaki followed because no argument or waffling could be brooked once the genie had been let out of the bottle. After Nagasaki, the Japanese capitulated totally and irrevocably.
Only in the minds of revisionists or speculators were the bombs dropped to warn the Russians off. Russia, staggering from their own losses in the European war (more Soviets died at Axis hands than Jews in the Holocaust, and even more at the hands of Stalin). They were not an immediate threat.
I'm sure the force of those bombs was felt in the Kremlin, however, but to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed as a message is disingenuous and dangerous.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Ghost
was that last point directed at me? I hope not, as I see your position, I was talking about the possibility of evil ideas--that thought intiruigs me.
Teshi
Just because no one has claimed responsibility YET doesn't mean that whoever planned this did not have motive beyond death.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
msquared, what ratio of civilian lives wasted vs. military lives saved would you consider worth the cost?
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
No, sorry Alexa, hadn't considered your questions enough to answer them yet. I will now though.
quote: However, do you believe in the presence of evil on this earth and how would you define it?
Gosh, thats really hard for me to say. I think that I do believe in evil, but that it is an incredibly rare thing. Most everyone who ever lived does what they think is right. Even most child molesters and serial murderers have some sort of psychological problem which drive them to do what they do. I would say without question though that their actions are evil.
quote:If they are not evil, is there ideology evil? Methods are methods, but what about objectives. I feel there is evil at play and evil at work.
Well I do think their methods are indeed evil, but driven by motives which are not. Their ideology in general? Not so sure. I think that the destruction of israel goal is definitely evil. Getting US support away from the Saudi monarchy is not however.
But I think I need to jump in here and say that these opinions are by no means final. For some reason adding "Ghost of" before my name makes it a lot easier to say my opinions, no matter how much I am not sure about them .
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
And I would like to say Alexa, that I think that you are one of my favorite Newbies of all time . Love reading your posts. You seem more opened minded to new opinions than just about anyone.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Msquared is wrong!
"Ending the war they was the US did it served several goals. It is very likely that it saved not only tens of thousands of American lives, it also likely saved as many if not more Japaness lives."
The actual historical projection were more like 1 million plus. And that was just Allied soldiers. That dosn't include the incalcuable number of Japanese soldier and civilians that would have fought to the bitter end when the invasion would come.
Although revisionist history tries to to deabte the argument today, I have no doubts that the bomb was used to SAVE lifes in the long run. It was simply a matter of mathmatics.
As for your suposed documantation stating that clearly there were democratic ideals in Japan at the end of the war I say so what? Just because there were some Americans in the early part of this century who openly beleived that communism was the way US society should develope dosn't mean that we were an emerging coumunist state, (btw I was recently facinated to know that Helen Keller was a very out-spoken activist for american communism! Who knew? ) The fact is that the Japanese society was under control of it's military. They were not going to surrender and there is an abundance of evidence support THIS. (Why do you think it took 2 of them anyhow?) The bomb ended the war and killed the fewest people in the process. I am not ashamed of government for doing so. I am proud of them. It was a horrible war on many accounts and the whole thing is regretable, but after all, we didn't exactly start it either. We just finished it.
Wish I could type faster! Sopwith made the same point above Much more completly too.
[ March 11, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Tom, I know you weren't talking to me, but I think that in Japan it wasn't just a question of civilian lives wasted vs. soldiers' lives saved. It was also a question of civilian lives saved. There's plenty of reason to think that if the Japanese government had not surrendered that the loss of civilian life would have been grievous.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
TomD
I don't know,but I would weight it in favor of my side. Something like this.
Conventional War: Our dead/wounded: 30,000 Their dead/wounded(civ and mil.) 50,000
Nukes: Our dead/wounded: 0 Their dead wounded(civ and mil.) 20,000
The above makes the choice obvious.
Please note that I am not saying that these are the numbers involved with Japan. But the idea that thousands of Japanesse were going to die, no matter how the war was going to end is the point. The question is how many Americans were going to die.
msquared
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, again, what's the acceptable ratio of lives spared/lives spent?
If you can kill one innocent to save four, is that "good?" What about a hundred?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Helen Keller was a very out-spoken activist for american communism! Who knew?
I did, and it was the main reason I opposed having her image appear on Alabama's state quarter.
[/tangent]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Paladin,
When you say I was wrong, I assume you mean that I understated my numbers, not that I was wrong in the idea. I have understated my numbers becuase I do not have the hard numbers at my hand.
msquared
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
SOpwith and msquared
Like I said, the debate goes on, I only stated my position, as you did yours. Quick references to check tho....
IN 1919 "minponshugi" was the name of a powerful democratic movement in Japan. Minponshugis was at odds with "Penoism" which states that the center of the universe is the emperor (hence the Japanese flag)
Some leading Japanese Philosophers that pushed the movement for democracy before WWII are Sakuzo Yoshino and Chomin Nakae.
So, yes, I do have historical precidence to say there was a push for democracy in Japan that threatened the established peno doctrine.
As far as IF it saved lives..that is an active debate, and I guess we can debate it here, but the point was to show that killing is not always evil, so, how do we define terrorist killing from our own? There have been some good posts already I will address after I have time to think it over.
Sopwith, it is not revisionism that our motive to drop the bomb had to do with Russia, it only feels that way because people in America are beginning to see the possibility---But trust me, that is not a new idea in either Japan or Russia.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Tom,
Again, I don't know. I would have to see what the situation was though, just like Truman did.
I know you are a pacifist and that there is probably no acceptable ratio for you.
msquared
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing is, I'm not arguing that it wasn't necessary. I'm arguing that, as necessary an evil it may have been, it was still evil.
I mean, if we're working purely on utilitarian hypotheticals, you can come up with perfectly good arguments for terrorism. What if, for example, the government was executing tens of thousands of people yearly for no good reason, and the population simply wouldn't snap out of their apathy -- but by blowing up a train station, you could somehow prove the government's complicity in this injustice to the world, even if it meant that a couple of hundred civilians would die?
Killing's killing.
[ March 11, 2004, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Alexa
Russia may have been a side reason, but to contrue what Russia and Japan thought were our reasons, over what our leaders stated reasons were, is grasping.
Your original statement implied that a democratic revolution was impending in Japan. A movement 20 years before the war started is hardly a forceful movement.
msquared
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:If you can kill one innocent to save four, is that "good?" What about a hundred?
For the sake of argument, are the decisions involved in the following two pairs of scenarios the same or different? Are the scenarios themselves the same or different?
Scenario 1a: Persons A, B, and C, all innocents, die. Scenario 1b: Person A dies, but Persons B and C live.
Scenario 2a: Person D, an innocent, lives, but Persons E, F, and G, also innocents, die. Scenario 2b: Person D dies, but Persons E, F, and G live.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Tom, I don't beleive that question is not relevent when you look at it from the context of the times. The Japanese military deliberately targeted and abused civilians. Ever hear of the rape of Nanking? not to argue that 2 wrongs make a right...but when that is the perspective that five years of war can create in a society.
Again, I truely believe that not haveing to invade the home islands save not just Allied military but Japanese civilian lives aswell! The Japanese people truly believed we would kill and tortue every last one of them. Their government lied to them to get them to sacrifice their lives resisting the Allies. Heck, there is documented evidence that they would hurl themselves and their children off cliffs onto sea rocks when we occupied the island of Okinawa (sp?)
So it wasn't a question of just civilian lives vs. our military but estimated million plus of soldiers and civilian vs. a hundred thousand. Not happy choice but war is like that.
msquared: I am a bit of a history buff, as you might have guessed. I have heard several estimates of the projected casualties, the average to me seems to be as high as one million US soldiers. So yeah I was just disagreeing with your numbers, not your claim
Apologies to all for my typos, as I relaize I don't type that well, but am trying to keep up.
[ March 11, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"not to argue that 2 wrongs make a right"
Isn't that pretty much what you just did?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I do want an answer to my previous question, Tom, but here's another one: is killing really killing? If an armed person is coming at me with the intention of killing me, is killing him first evil? What if this hypothetical person has also stated that after killing me, he will also kill my family? I suppose you could argue that you always have some alternative to killing, like running away or trying to otherwise restrain your assailant, but what if those options are not possible? Would avoiding the killing at the expense of your own life and that of your family be less evil? Or are good people sometimes just required to do evil things and there's no two ways about it?
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
No. I just tried to place the decision to kill with the bomb in the context of the times. Dropping the bomb was not wrong when considering the consequences of invasion. Killing is wrong except when you kill to save lives. I submit that the bomb did so.
[ March 11, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Alexa, you are right there were fledgling Democratic movements in Japan prior to WWII. I do believe that you are painting them as having a larger role than they actually had, though. College professors will often attribute a minor movement with more emphasis than it really had in their desire to meet their disertation requirements and to strike a pose of originality in a field as well-trod as the history of the 20th Century.
The movements you speak of had about as much political clout as the American Bund, a contemporary that espoused facism in America. Speaking of fascism, though, I think you may have missed the point on how facists came to power throughout the Axis. In each case, the first movements of democracy in the countries led to facism.
But first, one has to understand one intrinsic part of fascism that seems lost on today's generation. Fascists don't wrest power from the people, instead they derive their power from the people.
The Fasces (a bundle of sticks tied around an axe) was the symbol of the Roman Empire. It symbolized the power granted to the Senate and then the Emperors from the citizens of the Empire. Carried in parades and in any procession, it was a symbol to the people from the government that they were acting with your approval, with your power, to tackle the problems you had.
Remember that Hitler was elected to a position of power by the people of Germany in the depths of their terrible economic depression. He rose to ultimate power with the von Hindenberg's resignation and he rose to the cheers of the German populace.
In Japan, Tojo did the same, bolstered by the populace's belief in their superiority and need to become major players on the world's stage. The Japanese facists whipped up the images to the point where almost every Japanese man could see himself in the station of a samurai just as the Nazis used Wagner's images and the idea of the Aryans as cultural ideals.
After the war was said and done, few were the people in Japan who could shame themselves enough to say they had supported the fascists, and yet they had done just that. In Germany, one could search and never find anyone who had been a Nazi, but only those who claimed to have been Germans.
In the case of both populations, they were only able to give up their fascist ideals when their whole society and civilization had been torn down around their very ears. Once that had been destroyed and the myths had been washed from their eyes could they look on themselves in shame and understand what they had done. Like showing a newly thin person a picture of themself when they were fat, they couldn't bear to see what they had once been... they just turned their heads and said, "That's not me."
We've allowed them to hide that shame and their own evil marks on history. To a degree that is a good thing and very much a necessity for the world to have mended itself after that horrid conflict.
But by the same, we shouldn't revise the real history and say "They had some democratic aspirations, they weren't all that bad." Yes, they were that bad and worse. We can let them hide their shame, but when we rewrite history to help them feel better, we offer them a chance to forget the difficult lesson learned. Once all have been allowed to cleanse their souls by a false ablution, then they no longer fear becoming again what they once were.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Alexa wanted to know:
What are your thoughts on the difference between "us" (any free democratic society) and "them" (terrorists).
1. Terrorists don't stick around to rebuild.
2. Terrorists don't sign treaties after their demands are met. You can't surrender to a terrorist because he doesn't have a face or a name.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Wow Sopwith. Well said!
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The Japanese people truly believed we would kill and tortue every last one of them. Their government lied to them to get them to sacrifice their lives resisting the Allies.
Was it a lie or merely an intelligence failure? Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"Was it a lie or merely an intelligence failure? [Wink] "
Does it matter? It wasn't true. It was useful propoganda deseminated (sp?) by a desperate regime that realized it days were probably numbered.
Wonder what lies the Hussien regime spread about the US prior to it's folding that are still creating some difficulties over there?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Or are good people sometimes just required to do evil things and there's no two ways about it?"
Yep. That's the way I look at it.
Killing someone who's threatened to kill your family is still evil -- but it may also be necessary. That's why I'm not a big fan of calling something "good" or "evil" in the first place; the simple fact is that the only way to live a perfectly good life is to be pretty much omniscient, and therefore able to arrange things so that you're never forced into situations where the best decision is the evil one.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Well that's if you choose to define evil as something you can attribute to an action itself - out of context. I don't choose to use that definition. For something to meet my definition of evil, intent and situational circumstances also have to be taken into account.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Ok, so then what about the Sept. 11th attacks defines them as Evil? Can the hijackers motivations be judged evil independently of the actions or results?
Was their apparent motivation, to send a message to the US about meddling in their affairs, evil? Or just the action of cowardly killing thousands of innocent people?
edit: This is not a defence of their misguided and terrible actions, rather these are thoughts I am seeking to reconsile. (sp?)
[ March 11, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
My Dad once explained to me that Devil's greatest coup was on the day he convinced everyone he didn't exist.
And yup, that's the way Evil (with the big E) works. When we forget that it exists, it thrives in the absence of our vigilence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"For something to meet my definition of evil, intent and situational circumstances also have to be taken into account."
The problem here, of course, is that almost no one commits an evil act without first justifying it to themselves.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Is your question directed at me, Paladin?
I think you can judge motivations indepent of actions, but not vice versa.
So, if, as you say, the terrorists intent was to send a message to the US about meddling, that isn't necessarily evil. However, I don't believe that was there whole intent. It seems to me their motivations are more along the lines of "We must make war on America and the west because they stand in the way of our goal of spreading our version of Islam throughout the whole world." That I would consider evil.
As for the outcome, well, yeah, it's definitely evil because you've gotta have something pretty big to justify killing 3000 civilians, and, in my jusdgement, they didn't have anything close to enough.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Tom,
quote:The problem here, of course, is that almost no one commits an evil act without first justifying it to themselves.
Well, then we're really just arguing about semantics. You say an evil act is an evil act, but it's okay if it's necessary. I say that if it's necessary then it's not evil. But if it's okay, then it's not really evil, is it?
And yes, people will always have different definitions of what constitutes evil. You're not going to solve that problem until you install a hive-mind in everybody. That doesn't mean that I have to accept someone else's justification over my own judgement.
[ March 11, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Kamisaki ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Please keep in mind that the Japanese initiated the indiscriminate killing of civilians.
The rape of Nanking alone killed between 150,000 to 300,000 civilians.
quote:The soldiers also used bayonets, machine guns, live burial and fire. Decapitation was popular, evidenced by dozens of photographs in James Yin Shi Young's The Rape of Nanking (Innovative Publishing Group, 1996). Chinese heads were fed to the dogs. Women were raped, forced to perform bizarre sexual acts, then killed. Fathers were forced to rape their daughters, and sons, their mothers. Chinese men were forced to rape corpses. Competitions took place among Japanese soldiers to see how many Chinese they could kill in one day.
Even today many Japanese people still hold on to the belief that the rape of Nanking was a "hoax".
quote:Some Japanese nationalist scholars and conservative lawmakers say the figures are inflated; some even call the entire massacre a hoax.... In 1994, then-Justice Minister Shigeto Nagano had to resign after calling the Rape of Nanking a "fabrication."
I feel bad about the Japanese civilians who died. But the real blame goes to their government and military leaders, not America.
Edited for speeling.
[ March 11, 2004, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"Even today many Japanese people still hold on to the belief that the rape of Nanking was a "hoax"."
Interesting that many neo-nazi faction in the US claim that the Nazi Holocaust of Jews was a hoax as well. Revisionist history in it's extreme...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Xavier,
quote:I saw the 9/11 attacks as a brilliant military strike on both our moral and our economy.
Personally, I think this is accurate-with some qualifications. Al Qaeda is at war, not just with America, but essentially everyone who does not subscribe to their own beliefs. They're attacking the West and America in particular now (and it's likely they're behind the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than America is in the Persian Gulf War II, also) because we're their biggest enemies and threats. But make no mistake, they're at war with everyone who doesn't believe and act according to their whims.
quote:Yeah they did. So what? Military strikes have always been justified if they damaged the ability of their opponents to wage war. Hurting our economy is more than enough justification.
Then first it should be said that their attack was a miserable failure. 09-11-01, more than anything since Pearl Harbor, increased our ability and willingness to wage war. Afghanistan and Iraq would almost certainly not have Americans running their government without it. Second, the objective of the attack was not to damage our ability to wage war. Al Qaeda is evil-I'll get to that later*-but not stupid. I cannot believe they would think this would in any way impact our military effectiveness.
No, their motive was to strike at our will to fight and to cripple the American government and its populace's willingness to fight. A computer virus could've gone after the economy, were that their primary goal. So no, it wasn't exactly a military strike because it achieved no real military strategic objective. What such objective did their attack achieve, exactly? What such objective could it be reasonably expected to have accomplished?
Just because military attacks will sometimes kill civilians or damage civlian infrastructure does not mean that an attack targetted exclusively on civilians and civilian infrastructure is a military attack.
quote:Well, yeah, but neither was the United States before they fought for it. I don't see how this makes any difference.
I agree. Of course, I also agree with this when I hear people complaining about how we can't declare war on Al Qaeda. Maybe we don't have a legal framework for declaring national war on a non-national organization, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't.
quote:They aren't "evil-doers". They are people who believe strongly in something and are willing to do whatever it takes to get it. That doesn't mean we should let them have it, but it does no good to label them as evil and treat them as monsters.
* Such a level of ruthlessness is, to me, the very definition of evil. The ends to which their means are aimed is another part of it. Al Qaeda's ends are the overthrow of Western civilization and the ascendancy of the most militant fundamentalist "Islam". (I say it with quotes because their definition is a perversion of that religion.) Their means? Targetting and murdering civilians in as bloody, numerous, public, and efficient means as possible while causing the maximum of fear and damage to civilian targets.
Even in Iraq where there are thousands of legitimate military targets, who are they also attacking? Policeman and civilians, Allies and Iraqi alike.
quote:They are the enemy, but that doesn't make them evil.
Quite true, but the things I've said do. Just because you eschew the term doesn't make you more rational and level-headed in thinking of how to deal with them. It's just semantics. I too believe they are willing to do anything to achieve their evil goals (just because they think they're good goals don't make it so, anymore than my calling them evil makes them so).
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I agree with Kamisaki...Evil has to be taken into context.
I do not believe Harry S. Truman was Evil. Evil, in my mind must have INTENT, otherwise it is unfortunate, it is a waste, it is miscommunication or not having all the available facts, but I contend it is not evil.
Since I believe our president was NOT evil, nor were there evil influences manipulating his decision, I can not call the use of the atomic bomb evil.
What dropping the atomic bomb accomplished was establish another setting and precedent that justified killing civilians in war with yet another weapon..a WMD to boot.
I don't think saving lives is a compelling argument, because once you use a weapon, chances are it will be used again. And who today doubts that another nuclear attack somewhere WILL happen? We set the precedent.
Now..was using the A-Bomb wrong? I don't think so. The world was changing and tough choices needed to be made, and I am grateful Truman made that choice. I still maintain that a bigger part of his decision was with Russia. He new what we would face with Stalin. I don't think it is wrong or Anti-American to suppose that Russia was the influence.
Many factors had to be considered to make such a large decision--and Russia [IMRAO (in my research and opinion)]was a key factor.
Japan did not have a minor democratic movement involving a few intellectuals. It was a major movement that threatened the class system of the day with the Emperor in the middle. I am not saying the movement alone is why Japan entered the war, but it was a major reason. Does anyone really think Japan thought they could acquire more land by attacking us?
But if you disagree, that is fine. Here is an example of an impasse in a discussion, so moving on...
We set the precedent for using WMD. SO, if a terrorist attacks us (say killing 3,000 civilians), what is morally different? I don't buy the argument that we were at war with Japan. If that is the only defense of the use of the A-bomb, then terrorism is nothing more then killing with a first attack and retaliation with a WMD is fine.
Calling terrorists evil seems like name-calling to me, they are smarter then that. But we must understand if there is an evil influence. So, before we can do that, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EVIL?
To me, evil is intentionally taking away the consent of someone. If fear and death is used to topple a government so people suffer or so you can usurp their rights, then I see that as evil and terrorism.
But that leaves out McVeigh. Was he evil? He had intent, but he disregarded life for a higher cause. Well, our government has done the same. Is he evil? why or why not? <--that is a rhetorical question used to underscore the importance in my mind why we need to define evil first. Any definitions?
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
I have a an equation to define Evil. It is set in the context of killing because that is what most of this thread has revolved around:
Killing others simply because they disagree with you = Evil.
Another main component of true Evil is selfishness. Evil is motivated by supreme selfishness that results in absolute disreguard for others. The opposite of Love.
edit: Too Naive?
[ March 11, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
thebad thing about posting, is there are so many ihnteresting points, and by the time you post to one, it is outdated! lol..
I love Rakeeshes post and will coment on it when I have free time, for now, I am off to home, errends, life, et cetera, but i will return and pick up where you leave off...thanks for the interest.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Damn,
I have to reply to PaladinVirtue before I leave...
It is not that I think your definition is naive, but not very workable. That is ok, neither is mine yet. I am curious if we can achieve a workable definition.
I am trying to point out that it is NOT the killing that is evil. Trumen had a lot of Japanese killed. I see Snowball as evil, bu tI want to better defend why...but I really need to go home. So more later.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
BTW, as a note of trivia, it is Harry S Truman, not Harry S*.* Truman. The letter S was just an S, not an abbreviation of anything. Go figure.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alexa,
quote:"Why is America worried about other countries using the A-bomb when, to date, they are the only country in the world who has used it on civilians?"
This question to me is one that, on the surface, sounds thoughtful and wise. But just a little examination, to my mind, makes it appear as it really is: a criticism of America.
Now I've got no problem with criticism of America. It's my home, and I criticize it, its people, and its leadership frequently. But it is, to me, obvious that everyone should be concerned about nuclear war, not just America. And in fact we, being the only ones who have actually used nuclear weapons in a war situation, should perhaps be considered expert in concern over whether or not it will be used again.
Kind of like (and I know this is a flawed analogy) cop has to shoot a criminal with his sidearm, he's seen what it can do and is therefore more concerned than someone who knows about the effect of guns than an academic observer.
But anyway...
quote:The theory that makes most sense to me is because we wanted to send a message to Russia. The war was over, Japan was collapsing, and we had our marines ready to invade...BUT... we knew what was going on in Russia and could not afford a new war. Pretty powerful message that started the cold war.
I don't know, you might be right...but the large Western apathy seems to contradict this theory. Why did we just let the Soviet Union envelop much of the world for years before we got our tails into gear? Is it solely because we had the Bomb and didn't think we'd need to ever fight again? I don't think so, because that stupidity didn't permeate all of the American leadership. I think it's also because, even during the war, we thought the Soviets were our friends. This was never true.
It seems to me that the ultimate causes for Japan's entry into WWII, before and after Pearl Harbor, had little to do with stamping out democratic elements within its own population. It seemed to me to be more a desire to fulfill longstanding territorial and imperial ambition, to be its own economic masters and dominant in the Pacific, and to spread its own superior culture and people throughout. I could be wrong, but I've never heard the explanation you've given.
quote:You think anyone could look the people in the eyes, understand the value of life, be emotionally connected and STILL drop the bomb?
Yes. But then, I probably define the words you used differently than you would.
quote:I have also heard an American Officer of high rank (at my rinky-dink state college) say that wars are not won until you take it to the civilians. I believe him.
Then how does this explain America's methods of waging war? We make massive, expensive, frequently dangerous and inefficient efforts to avoid taking war to civilians quite often. While our wars have claimed their civilian lives, if America operated according to the (incorrect, I believe) doctrine espoused by that military officer, how America makes war would be radically different.
quote:I agree, we need to look at them as briliant strategest and not just evil people, However, do you believe in the presence of evil on this earth and how would you define it?
I do agree that labelling them 'evil' and then simply not trying to think like they do is a recipe for disaster. A successful strategist should be able to make himself think like his enemy. But this does not, as I said earlier, mean that this particular enemy is not an evil one. Nor are they by any means 'brilliant strategists'. Perhaps they've got some tactical sense, but their means have not at all achieved their ends.
The most friendly government to their cause has been overthrown, and American and Allied soldiers have invaded and conquered. This has not been completely successful, but al Qaeda was removed from their primary base. One of the most famed and powerful (well, once anyway) Middle-Eastern governments has been overthrown, and it begins to appear as though a non-theocratic, Western-style government will take its place. These sorts of things are not the result of successful strategic planning if I'm an al Qaeda operative.
This is not to say strategic thinking has been entirely successful on the part of America, either. Because it's just as obvious that ain't true.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
quote: Was their apparent motivation, to send a message to the US about meddling in their affairs, evil? Or just the action of cowardly killing thousands of innocent people?
Personally, I would have to say it that it was anything but cowardly. It was a well-planned, ruthless attack on a target by men who had to have balls of steel, excuse the expression.
Note that I do not admire their actions, but I do give credit where credit is due. To say that they were cowardly is to say that Hitler was stupid or something of the kind; it is a view clouded by hatred.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
The guys on the planes were pretty brave. The guys in the caves with the satellite phones brainwashing them into it? Total wussies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You say an evil act is an evil act, but it's okay if it's necessary."
Nope. I say it's NECESSARY if it's necessary, but nowhere do I suggest that it's okay. A justifiable evil remains evil.
Ends justify means, but they never excuse them.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Tom, I have to admit I'm not really understanding your position. what's the difference between "justified" and "okay"?
You're still differentiating between one kind of evil and another. I just choose not to call the first kind evil.
My definition of evil means that it is never the right choice to do something evil. With your definition, sometimes it is. I think that lessens the usefulness of the word as an indicator of morality.
I still think it's just semantics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The semantic difference is that while I agree it's never the RIGHT choice to do something evil, it CAN be the only reasonable choice.
An evil to which someone is driven remains evil.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Okay, I still disagree, bbut I think I understand where you're coming from.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
A good way to understand Tom's point is to think of the Garden of Eden the way the Mormons look at it.
Eve eats the fruit, right? And so she's going to be kicked out of the Garden.
Now Adam's stuck with a choice. He's either got to eat the fruit, and be disobedient, or let Eve leave the garden alone, and break the other commandment of multiplying and replenishing the earth.
All his choices are evil.
So he picks one. He eats the fruit.
We all agree he made the best choice, given the circumstances, because now we're here.
But, he still has to deal with the consequences of the choice he made. He gets kicked out of the Garden of Eden. He becomes mortal. And so on.
Does that make sense?
If you do something evil, like drop a bomb on people, the cause may be justified, but that does not relieve you of responisbility of the negative consequences of your actions. You still owe a debt to the widows and orphans and injured you've created. You still should feel a responisibility to make things right.
You still have to take responisibility for the consequences, rather than distancing yourself from them because you were taking the moral high ground.
(Edit: Hit return too fast, finished my thought)
[ March 11, 2004, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: docmagik ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The important thing, then, is to be aware of all the consequences of your actions -- or, at the very least, as many as you can personally foresee and/or manipulate -- so that you are not backed into situations where the only solution with a positive outcome requires an evil method. And, equally importantly, it becomes vital to recognize that those situations in which you've been "forced" to do evil arise partly through your own negligence, and consequently you DO (as doc pointed out) bear the responsibility for your choice -- even if you can reasonably claim that it was the only choice you could have made.
As a side note, this is part of why I have trouble believing in an omniscient God who behaves as described in the Bible. To my mind, some of the actions directly performed or demanded by God are clearly evil -- and I consider the ESSENCE of benevolent omniscience the ability to avoid such situations.
[ March 11, 2004, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
In "the Prince" Machivelli postulates that every action is inherently injust because any change must adversly affect someone. I believe that the use of the Atomic bomb against Japan was necessary and morally correct. We were not at war solely with the Japanese military, we were at war with the whole nation. This is specific to this war (and several others)and the fanatical devotion of the people of Japan to thier cause.
I believe that some acts that are normally evil can be justified by extrordinary circumstances.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing is, Machiavelli was all about confusing necessity with ethics. I'm not sure, as a consequence, he's particularly valuable when it comes to ethical arguments; he's the quintessential utilitarian.
(As a side note, though, I readily agree that Machiavelli dees a better job of justifying utilitarianism than just about anyone else. I'm just highly uncomfortable with that philosophy, as it seems to me that the most "utilitarian" ethical solutions are also sometimes the most brutal -- and I'm not quite able to justify brutality for the sake of a greater "mercy.")
[ March 11, 2004, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
::shrugs::
Yeah. I'm rather utilitarian myself. I took a Myers-Brigg test and scored a perect score in logic, but a perfect zero in feelings. But still think intentions are an improtant factor.
That and who wins in the end is important.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
For 700 years, the Irish people had been held subject against their will by the British. Despite the grossest of abuses during this time, the Irish periodically rose up against their oppressors and were defeated. All this changed with the coming of Michael Collins. Collins, a veteran of the failed 1916 Easter Rising, which used convential tactics (poorly) designed to hurt England's ability to make war against the rebels, changed the face of the Irish Rebllions and indeed the nature of war forever. Guerilla warfare had first been formalized by Spanish resistance to Napolean's armies. Collins married the surgical hide and fade strikes and hiding amoung the populace with attacks on non-military targets and the aim of provoking a psychological response to form a new way of carrying on war. It's because of this that many people consider him the founder of modern terrorism.
Michael Collins and the struggle for Irish Independence has a lot to teach us about terrorist campaigns. For one thing, I believe that the it shows that, given a situation where a weak but determined foe is fighting a much greater one, the adoption of terrorist tactics is pretty much inevitible, if the weaker side is to have any hope of achieving their goals. It's not so much a matter of being evil (I regard Michael Collins as a hero), but rather one of simple logic. Terrorism has consistently been shown to allow a small group of people who would be essentially meaningless in a conventional conflict to have a large effect. Like a 400-pound going to die at 38 from heart failure lineman in the NFL, it gives the most bang for the buck.
Second, Michael Collins was using the weakness of the British against them. The British's behavior towards the Irish has been and pretty much still is atrocious. Collins knew that if he could frighten and frustrate them while remaining well-regarded himself, the British would dishonor themselves before the eyes of the world. So, he used sensational tactics to draw the world's attention to his people's plight and struck at the heart of the British power in the region, the civilian adminstrators of the British rule and the paid Irish informers that they used. He and his men mercilessly assassinated these people, to both severly damage the British ability to counter attack and to provoke them into commit horrible actions. The Brits were no long in obliging this second part. On November 21, 1920, immediately folowing a round of Collin's crew assassinations, the British military forces drove armored cars into an full Irish stadium and started mowing down the crowd. While a horrifying event and one of the blackest single days in Irish history, this was also exactly what Michael Collins was trying to provoke. With the depths of British injustice and immorality revealed, the Brits soon looked to settle this situation. A truce was declared in July of 1921 which led to te treaty which established, for the first time in over 700 years of struggle, an Irish state more or less governed by the Irish.
Druing World War II, the Allies gave a lot of thought to the problem of using their definite air superiority to help win the war. The decided that the key to this was to use a new approach to bombing, they termed "strategic". Colonel Carl "Tooey" Spaatz was put in charge of strategic bombing in Italy and later Berlin. He formulated a doctrien that specifically attacked civilian targets to cause a feeling of terror and helplessness in the populations of these countries and drive them to surrender or face continued bombing. While he he fought rather heatedly against the RAF's tendency to unrestrictedly bomb militarily irrelevant targets such as small Italian villages, he nonetheless made no bones about making the psyches of the civilian populations the primary target of his bombing.
Spaatz himself opposed the atomic bombing of Japan. Instead, he suggested a pattern of bombing that had been regarded as the primary cause for the Italian's early surrender. Regardless, the American government and military gave to go ahead to incinerate two large centers of civilian populations, just as earlier near the end of the war in Europe, they had condoned the firebombing or militarily irrelevant Dresden.
If you want to, as Sopwith said, force people to come face to face with the dark parts of hisotry, you bear the responsiblity to acknowledge your own dark parts. While I'm very ambivilent about the atomic bombings (much less so about the Irish revolution), I'm not going to somehow pretend that it wasn't an absolutely horrible thing to do or that it shouldn't trouble our nation's conscience. I find the fact that so many people on this thread are willing to do this sickening.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"While a horrifying event and one of the blackest single days in Irish history, this was also exactly what Michael Collins was trying to provoke."
Yes. He killed a number of innocent men in order to encourage the deaths of hundreds of MORE innocent men. Why, that's positively heroic.
Let's put it another way: it's monstrous, and I sincerely hope that, if there is a hell, Collins finds himself in it.
Sure, Irish independence is grand; as somebody who went to Ireland for my honeymoon, I'm clearly attached to the place. But you literally spit in the faces of the families of the dead when you call their murderers heroes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Where I in a similar position to leaders of al-Queda, I'm pretty sure I'd be doing about the same thing. If you compare the lives lost versus the effect caused, the 9/11 bombings were one of the most successful military attacks in history. IT was a very efficient use of their resources.
America sits astride the world like a colossos. And just like the ancient Colossos, this means we pretty much crap on anyone we want. People seem to think that we are the guys in the white hats. I think an unbiased view of American foreign policy quickly gives the lie to this. I honestly believe that our hats are less dirty than pretty much anyone else's, but we are by no means that paragons of goodness and fair dealing that many people seem to put us out as. Many groups in the world have legitimate reasons to hate us.
It's also absurb, in my view, to consider the Islamic fundamnetalists as somehow not a part of humanity. There was a time where the Islamic world was the advanced, tolerant one and the Christian one was the ignorant, xenophobix one engaged in atrocities against the "others". We've been there and we've developed out of it. The reasons why we did so, for me, are one of the main things we should be looking.
It may make you feel good to call terrorists evil and then walk away from the whole thing, but really, what purpose does that serve. The fact remains, these people are doing what they do for reasons. And just like the white supremicist didn't hate Blacks just because he hated blacks and the Christian didn't really attack the Jews because his religion told him to, the basis of Islamic aggressions against the west aren't really bound up in the Religion as truth. There are deeper issues there. For one thing, they live in a crap heap and we've conspired to keep them there. It's easy to recruit suicide bombers when life sucks. People who have more to lose are much less willing to do things lke that, just like gaining 30 pounds and a 401k tends to make people more conservative.
Right now, as I see it, the Islamic Fundamentalists are presented with a choice between cultural despair, a doomed war, and terrorism. The Native Ameicans went into the culture of despair and it didn't really work out all that well for them. Given those options, I'd go for terrorism every day of the week and twice on sunday.
I'm not trying to argue that te terrorists are morally right. I'm trying to say 1) that they aren't all the much different from people in our culture (considering the differening situations, I'm not even sure they are different) and 2) the only solution that we have if we stop our thinking at calling them "evil" or varlse is to wipe out their entire culture. Treating them like human beings instead of inexplicably evil demons from hell is likely to give us more and better options. We have (partially) grown out of that evel of immaturity. I believe that they can too. However, it is possible that there is neither time nor resources enough. In which case, I may have to concede that wiping them out, as we did to the innocent Japanese, is the last option left. I just want to be sure that it really is the last option, rather than the one that was the most convenient and plays best in our prejudiced populace.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let's be clear on this, though: we are agreed that the murder of three thousand people in cold blood IS evil, right? Regardless of its motivation?
[ March 12, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom, I've never been able to understand why killing some 18 year old is ok but killing the 45 year old person who is directing and benefitting from that kid's actions is not ok. That's exactly what Collins did. He attacked the head rather than the hands. In a certain way, that's what the 9/11 terrorists did. We Americans bear the responsiblity for what is done in our name, for what we cause to happen, and for what we benefit from, I'd argue more than the poor bastard in a fox hole who carries out the brute force part of these things. But then again, maybe I'm a monster.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, killing 3000 people in cold blood is evil, right?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The murder of 3,000 people is evil, no matter what the temperature of the blood it was carried out in. It's also understandable and good tactics.
Killing anyone - hell the use of force at all - is a terrible thing. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't situations where it is warranted. I can definitely see how the al-Queda terrorists would consider what they did justified and am unwilling to accept what seems to me a lot of people's belief that it's wrong when they do it, but ok when we or someone we like does it.
The actions are evil, but I'm much less convinced of the evilness of the people doing it. To me, it seems like, as I said, they chose between despairing and the best fomr of active resistence available to them.
[ March 12, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The guys on the planes were pretty brave. The guys in the caves with the satellite phones brainwashing them into it? Total wussies.
I point this out not to Bush-bash but to point out the hypocrisy. President Bush has constantly been hailed for his courage in sending other people to fight and die in Iraq. How is this siutation different?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Before the war happened, it seemed like every day I heard on the news that some group or another was protesting against the idea. The country seemed very set against it, and Bush did what he thought he should. I expected it to be a political disaster for him. It ended up not being like that, but if I were to call him brave, it would be for doing what looked like political suicide in order to try to make the world a safer place.
But I don't really know if he was, because I don't know how much he thought he was sacrificing in order to go to war in Iraq.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Oh the task ahead! But first, How do I quote people in this post like everyone else? I am just copying and pasting...is there a better way?
Deep Breath............Stretch............Exhale............... and..........
Clarification
After reviewing my previous posts, I concluded that I have not explained Japan's reason to go to war well. If I had, then I don't think RyanHart would of postulated "We were not at war solely with the Japanese military, we were at war with the whole nation. This is specific to this war (and several others)and the fanatical devotion of the people of Japan to their cause."
The cause RyanHart is referring to is Japanese Imperialism.
Japan and America had good relations. Actually there were many Japanese students living abroad (Europe included) before WWI. During WWI they had to return to Japan, but they brought back democratic ideas.
There was Minposhugi (Democratic revolution). The philosophy spread into the culture as a reaction to the governments right wing (right wing here is referring to big government with emperor in middle) The people yearned for freedom--western style.
It was all just a thought. The government maintained power. The belief was strong, but daily life was still poor and the people became disillusioned.
Suddenly there was Russia. The proletariat revolted took power. The democratic movement gave up democracy and embraced communism. The people became more extreme and started to use terrorist tactics to change the government. A revolution was brewing that could be very bloody. The government responded and the emperor had the democrats-turned-communists tortured and executed.
The government became even bigger and more powerful then before the first democratic movement. **Law of unintended consequences.
The big government in rule of the people had became even more imperialistic through-out Asia. France and America were vying for control in Indo-China (lots of oil). In steps Japan and wins.
America was not too happy with Japan's imperialism, but Indo-China was the last straw..our vested interests were disrupted.
We gave Japan a very short amount of time (around a week) to withdraw or we would cut off all of our resources Japan was dependent on--mainly oil and technologies.
Japans government was already quite powerful due to the failed democratic and communist revolution and felt cornered to respond. West be gone!! The politicians and emperor were discussing what to do (the people had no desire to go to war with America, and in that climate, the Japanese army took it upon their shoulders to do a sneak attack (without the countries*citizens* consent).
This was not a fanatical country filled with devotion and love to the government, if it had been, Japan would never of embraced the democratic rule after the war. We still would of had to fight the civilian guerrillas like we are currently doing in Iraq.
The influence of the west had to be removed from both the culture and Imperialism of Japan.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Why is this important?
Well, this discussion is going very well in working through what is evil, politically correct, and a matter of survival--basically why do we do the things we do.
The hows and whys of WWII are a good place to start with defining evil and terrorism.
Sopwith
I like how you keep using the word “revisionist“. You feel very strongly about this issue, it makes for a better discussion. Thank you.
The point of showing Japan’s democratic aspirations was not to “excuse” them of some their atrocities. It was, in part to show there was a foundation already there to move into a democratic system. What Japan did was very wrong. I applaud our (America’s) response. I hope my last post clarifies the history for those following this post so they understand the context of our arguments.
We have hit a stand still. I believe that it was worth the use of the A-bomb, but NOT to save lives. It was worth it to change the course of world history to ensure democracy ruled. Whether we used the A-bomb on Japan or not would not of changed the ultimate conclusion to the war. We would of won anyway!
Granted, more could of (probably would of) died, but by dropping the bomb, we were the country responsible for unleashing it’s awesome powers on civilians. People are still dying from that attack. We set a precedent that it is ok to use WMD in war. So what intrigues me now is HOW do we justify it. I don’t say “justify” with a sneer. I think it is justified---but HOW AND WHY? For me the justification come in ensuring democracies rule in the world, and I see democracy as Inherently GOOD.
Democracy grants rights, protects individuals, blah blah blah-- I am preaching to the choir. If we staved off a Lenin rule, and democracy prevailed, then using the A-bomb to expedite the conclusion of a war was the correct thing to do. It saved lives, but more important, it secured democracy. If Russia really was no threat, and the bomb was only used to “save lives”--hmm, that doesn’t sit well with me.
How is that that perspective dangerous? I think Truman was very concerned about lives, but I think and hope the Russian influence is what ultimately tipped the scale.
If we do it to Japan it is good, if al-Queda does it to us, it is the ultimate evil. Why? I gave my reasons.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Xaposert
You said:
“WWII America made a better judgment call than Al Qaeda. That is the difference, and it's a difference in wisdom, not a matter of good souls vs. evil souls.”
So if al-Quaeda succeds in demoralizing America, destroying Jerusalem, bringing the west to their knees, and spreading Radical Islamic beliefs to a shattered world, then have they made a better judgment? If they can orchestrate 2 atomic blasts on both coasts and the world economy collapses and America falls, they are just “smarter” and there is no moral judgment?
Ghost of Xavier
You take the position that a child molester’s actions are evil, even if it is cause by some brain defect?
I admit, this is a touchy one for me...not your position, but the dilemma. I think every psychologist asks herself too what extent is behavior evil, biological, or a result of environment. Kind of the nature/nurture debate with the possibility of evil.
I think that evil exists, but the majority of what we call evil is either brain defects, bad socialization, miscommunication, or unenlightened decisions and conclusion. Is a child molester evil? In my mind, if it is a brain defect, then no. Well, see..maybe...that is hard for me. If it is biological and the resurrection fixes him/her, then are they healed and forgiven? Don’t know, glad I am not the judge.
For me, evil must have at least two of these three things...intelligence, intent, and satisfaction in suffering. If I defend a child and kill someone in the process, BUT I really enjoy killing the person; if it makes me happy, then yeah, I have crossed the line and need the Savior’s Atonement.
When we bombed Japan, there was dancing in the street, but I bet very little of it had to do with relishing in their (Japanese) suffering. When a terrorist attack succeeds, what do we witness in middle eastern streets?
Skillery
LOVED your response to my question...I would like to repost and give credit to you.....
What are your thoughts on the difference between "us" (any free democratic society) and "them" (terrorists).
1. Terrorists don't stick around to rebuild.
2. Terrorists don't sign treaties after their demands are met. You can't surrender to a terrorist because he doesn't have a face or a name.
Beautifully said!!
Rakeesh
I think we you are celebrating al-Queda’s demise prematurely. So we took out 2 governments--Big Deal!, one of their distinguishing characteristics is the structure of a “cell” network. We may be winning, but it is too early for a verdict.
Your cop analogy was great, but I think the criminal would have better comprehension as to what a gun can do then the shooter.
You also state: “Then how does this explain America's methods of waging war? We make massive, expensive, frequently dangerous and inefficient efforts to avoid taking war to civilians quite often. “
One of my points is we have done atrocities (Indians, Slaves, Japanese Interim Camps, Dresden, et cetera), but if you look at our history, we are striving to change in a positive way. I DID give credit that we spent a lot of money and effort in the Iraq war to avoid collateral damage---but that is an evolved strategy. It is the evolution of America I am proud of.
Final thought...
Sorry I took so much room, I had a lot on my mind. I will be more brief in the future, I said what I wanted to say. God bless America!!! Thank GOD for our freedoms and blessings. For me, the evil is in WHAT the terrorists are espousing, versus their tactics. Mr. Squiky brought up interesting points on why/how people resort to terrorism. If we trade in Democracy to survive, sucks to be us.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Alexa -- I don't think the move towards democracy and the extreme devotion in Japan are mutually exclusive, and I think its that disconnect that has a lot of American's misunderstanding the motivations of the populace during the war.
Japan []iwas[/i] moving towards democracy (and capitalism, interestingly); however, the already powerful corporations were exploiting the existing power structure and opposing the move to capitalism themselves. However, the largest (though not necessarily most powerful) power faction in the centralized government was the samurai caste. The people's move towards democratic leanings was mainly in the way of opposing the large oppresive government, which mainly meant the samurai caste.
However, the Japanese were still fanatically devoted to their emperor. To most of the citizens, he was a god on earth. Even today, when he has no official political power his influence is huge simply because of the loyalty of the people.
The samurai and the new corporations brought Japan so forcefully into the war by uniting their efforts. For the samurai, they risked losing their way of life, while for the corporations the war was an opportunity to jumpstart industry by exploiting the efforts of the Japanese people in the name of war-loyalty.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
Horseshit.
You're saying that Michael Collins was a hero-you even come close to saying because of-even though he specifically targetted civilians. But people who try to rationalize Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 'sickening'? I'll again refer to the first word used, and I chose it deliberately for effect.
quote:For one thing, I believe that the it shows that, given a situation where a weak but determined foe is fighting a much greater one, the adoption of terrorist tactics is pretty much inevitible, if the weaker side is to have any hope of achieving their goals.
It only shows that it happened in Ireland, and it shows absolutely nothing else whatsoever. You're actually excusing terrorism because it's the only way the war will be won by the terrorist? And yet when people who disagree with you about the bomb do the exact same thing, it's 'sickening'?
What about Gandhi? Martin Luther King? I'll say this to any jackass who excuses terrorism because it's the only way to win: point me to a single cause that has been obtained, a single major victory that has been won, by use of terrorism. That couldn't have been obtained more quickly, less bloodily, and less ruthlessly, by peaceful nonviolent means. Find one. Then look at causes struggled for by much weaker people against a stronger enemy that weren't obtained by terrorism.
It's the terrorism by a very small number of Irish that gives Britain an excuse to continue their treatment. It's suicide bombings targetting exclusively women and children and other civilians that lets Israel continue grinding the Palestinians under their boot. It's al Qaeda's terrorism that got the USA into Afghanistan and Iraq.
quote:If you want to, as Sopwith said, force people to come face to face with the dark parts of hisotry, you bear the responsiblity to acknowledge your own dark parts.
Or we could, on the other hand, say, "This guy who targets civilians-who invented the tactic-is a hero, but if anyone excuses anyone else from doing so, they're sickening."
Pull whatever strings you want, maneuver however you like, reason it all away, you are the one who is sickening, Mr. Squicky, in this issue: you're the one saying one man is a hero because he targets civilians, and others are sickening for excusing the precise same thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
quote:If you compare the lives lost versus the effect caused, the 9/11 bombings were one of the most successful military attacks in history. IT was a very efficient use of their resources.
What military objective was achieved? Name one.
quote:I honestly believe that our hats are less dirty than pretty much anyone else's, but we are by no means that paragons of goodness and fair dealing that many people seem to put us out as. Many groups in the world have legitimate reasons to hate us.
Well, finally we agree. Until you start labelling terrorists who exclusively target civilians as heroes again, of course.
quote:It's easy to recruit suicide bombers when life sucks. People who have more to lose are much less willing to do things lke that, just like gaining 30 pounds and a 401k tends to make people more conservative.
And yet, recruiting suicide bombers has not happened everywhere that life sucks. It is, to my knowledge, almost exclusively the province of fundamentalist 'Islamic' terrorists. While I don't say they aren't human, and I don't say they don't have reasons, and I don't advocate labelling them evil and just pretending they wear black and twirl mustaches, you have to admit that their religious beliefs play a part in this.
People will risk their lives, face terrible danger, on behalf of their people, if their people are suffering and there's a chance their risk will further their people's cause somewhat. But to guarantee their own death? That doesn't happen very often. To prepare for it, to expect it, to think abou it, this cannot be attributed solely to a reasonable examination of the living conditions of one's people.
If it could, it'd be happening all over the planet.
quote:Right now, as I see it, the Islamic Fundamentalists are presented with a choice between cultural despair, a doomed war, and terrorism. The Native Ameicans went into the culture of despair and it didn't really work out all that well for them. Given those options, I'd go for terrorism every day of the week and twice on sunday.
Then you would, of course, admit that Tibetans, minorities in America, Indians, etc., all faced the same sort of situation. But, strangely, they picked a choice you didn't offer, that you don't even acknowledge.
quote:I'm not trying to argue that te terrorists are morally right.
You called Michael Collins a hero. Make up your mind.
quote:I point this out not to Bush-bash but to point out the hypocrisy. President Bush has constantly been hailed for his courage in sending other people to fight and die in Iraq. How is this siutation different
Well, for one thing, Bush doesn't tell them to go and target civilians exclusively. Second, they aren't being convinced by Bush, they're convinced by something else. Third, they're not told that by murdering civilians they get to go straight to heaven and nail virgins.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Yes fugu13..you said
" The people's move towards democratic leanings was mainly in the way of opposing the large oppresive government, which mainly meant the samurai caste."
Yeah, I don’t understand how that is a contrary position to my previous posts. Your right, they opposed the big government, introduced democratic ideas, turned communist, were tortured and killed—leaving a more silent majority with a very large faction fanatical to the emperor.
What is surprising to me is that there was a movement where even the average ordinary person learned about democracy. Even though democracy was at complete odds with penoism (the emperor, samurai class system), the average person was not taught about democracy. This was new.
Of course, it was taboo to say democracy, so the average person had to say “minpon-shugi” (kind of a code word that implied a harmonious union of penoism and democracy). Even when the last emperor died, there were many old people who committed suicide, there were and are fanatics.
But there also was a movement that introduced democratic ideas and then communist ideas to the mainstream public. Japanese culture is thick on conformity. Family were not allowed to mourn publicly if their sons got called to be kamakazi piolets—because of honor.
What point of mine do you think this post is applying to?
Perhaps the meat of your post is “However, the Japanese were still fanatically devoted to their emperor. To most of the citizens, he was a god on earth.”
Is the point of saying that to maintain that if we invaded Japan there would have been high casualties because of the loyalty of citizens, therefore, dropping the A-bomb was justified? If so, that does not address my assertion that dropping the bomb was not justified if it was JUST to save lives.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
hmm, I may have to sit back and just watch Rakeesh adn Mr Squicky--how fun!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It was pretty much the still fanatically loyal to the emperor bit
Wrt the use of atomic weapons, my personal bet is that Japan would have caved after the first bomb, given another week, and assuming we were willing to concede the Emperor not being deposed. The Emperor was already interested in surrendering, as evidenced by the emissaries he sent to meet with allies with the offer to work towards just that -- a surrender where he got to remain as Emperor.
I do not think, however, that such a move would have been possible for the empreror before the first atomic bomb. The samurai and corporations controlled the whole of the bureaucracy, and were both capable of effectively deposing the emperor -- the samurai because they felt the emperor ruled as a representative of their class, and the corporates because they rejected the essence of more traditionalist views even as they embraced the power structures created by those views.
As to whether or not they were justified, while I feel justification is important, I find that concerning myself with how things work before I even begin to justify why I do things and why I think others should do things.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So if al-Quaeda succeds in demoralizing America, destroying Jerusalem, bringing the west to their knees, and spreading Radical Islamic beliefs to a shattered world, then have they made a better judgment? If they can orchestrate 2 atomic blasts on both coasts and the world economy collapses and America falls, they are just “smarter” and there is no moral judgment?
It is only good judgment if bringing America to its knees and spreading Radical Islamic beliefs to a shattered world turns out to be so good for the world that it is worth all the lost lives and other costs brought about by the means of getting there.
I think you are misunderstanding my view. I'm not saying that Al Qaeda misjudged what it would take to get what they want - and that if their terrorism worked then it would be good judgement. My argument is that they misjudged the worth of their goal - that they overestimated the value of destroying America and spreading Islam, and underestimated the moral cost of killing a bunch of innocents. They thought the scales tipped one way, when in reality they tipped far in the other direction.
quote:The semantic difference is that while I agree it's never the RIGHT choice to do something evil, it CAN be the only reasonable choice.
Tom, normally we say something is right or wrong in order to indicate whether we should or should not do it. What is the point, then, of claiming something is wrong but we should still do it? What does "X is wrong but you still have to do it" tell me that "X is right" doesn't?
I think that the definition of wrong implies that whatever is wrong should not be done, and therefore if something is necessary then it cannot be wrong.
[ March 12, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm enjoying the conversation.
Tom, how much does role playing influence your concept of good and evil? To me what it sounds like is that you are arguing lawful evil is still evil even if it is lawful, which I agree with but is a semi-circular argument. Is there an IRL difference between lawful evil and evil evil (I forget the correct RPG term) or not?
Alexa,
The way to quote is to look below the box where you typ to the little thing that says "instant UBB code"
You click on the QUOTE button and it gives you the correct coding and you start typing in between the QUOTE and the /QUOTE that are in brackets.
You can also do bold and italics, as well as adding any of the graemelins to your post by merely clicking on them. I was looking at the "list" buttons and realize I have no idea what they are.
maybe
they
add
bullets
yep they do!! AJ
[ March 12, 2004, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, how much does role playing influence your concept of good and evil? To me what it sounds like is that you are arguing lawful evil is still evil even if it is lawful, which I agree with but is a semi-circular argument."
Actually, D&D alignments don't reflect my worldview at all. In D&D, killing an orc bandit isn't an evil act; it's arguable, in fact, whether wiping out a whole village of orcs -- women and children included -- is even evil.
The "lawful" bit doesn't come into it; the only difference between lawful evil and chaotic evil is that one accepts the existence of a higher code.
In MY worldview, any evil act intentionally performed is still evil even if it's done with the best of justifications. Killing even a single enemy is still evil; it may be RIGHT, but it doesn't get less evil.
This means, of course, that people often find themselves in situations where they feel they HAVE to choose an "evil" solution, because the alternative is even MORE evil -- and, in fact, this is the case. The solution to this is to not get into those situations, and to not make it possible for people to put you into them. Unfortunately, this requires not only a superhuman amount of foresight but the cooperation of society.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Xaposert
You are right when you said I misunderstood your quote.
quote: My argument is that they misjudged the worth of their goal - that they overestimated the value of destroying America and spreading Islam, and underestimated the moral cost of killing a bunch of innocents. They thought the scales tipped one way, when in reality they tipped far in the other direction.
I think we are on the same side here, I just choose to call their goal evil instead of "overestimating the value" of their actions.
I base my use of the word evil because:
al-Queada is intelligent and understands of their own free will what they are doing.
They intend to take away rights of individuals and their actions are carefully planned (there is an element of "intent"--not a result of miscommunication or other unintentional factors).
They glory and take delight in the suffering they cause.
To me, these modern-day Muslim extremists satisfy my personal three conditions to be considered evil. It is my belief in evil, I think, that parts my path with Tom's path. **thanks for the technical tips BannaOj
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
) The fact is that the Japanese society was under control of it's military. They were not going to surrender and there is an abundance of evidence support THIS. (Why do you think it took 2 of them anyhow?) The bomb ended the war and killed the fewest people in the process. I am not ashamed of government for doing so. I am proud of them. It was a horrible war on many accounts and the whole thing is regretable, but after all, we didn't exactly start it either. We just finished it. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Much more completly too.