Is war about morality?

Yes, wars can be good or bad.

5 (45.5%)

No, wars are pre-moral when initiated, thus reset to pure survival.

6 (54.5%)

Total Members Voted: 2

[ladyattis]

If you got the balls to press no, I'll tip my hat to you, because you understand that when you're in a war right or wrong, it's always about survival.

If you press yes, then you really need to explain why without post-modern rationalizations and none of this tripe about 'civilized warfare' either.

-- Bridget

[Brian Wolf]

If you lose your morals just because you are in a conflict that someone labeled a 'war', and you think that is any way justified, then you had no morals in the first place.
Yes, you have to do some horrible things to survive in a situation where you are forced to  defend yourself. If you come to my house and try to rob/atttack me or my family, then I don't consider it immoral to defend myself from you, with deadly force if necessary.
Going back to your house and killing your family and their neighbors as revenge is definitly immoral.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a simple act of war and you fucking know it. It was a petty act of revenge and chest pounding. It was monstrous and evil. No amount of justification will change those facts or make it right.

Edit:

From the 'other' thread.

Yeah, if it gets the chicks wet. Plus, atomic bombs led to the the stalemate of the cold war. Without M.A.D. we wouldn't be here today. I accept that fact as a good thing. Plus the Japs wouldn't accept total surrender, so they had what was coming to them.

-- Bridget

Wow. Just...Wow.

Because the Government of Japan would not accept total surrender, then all of the innocent women and children who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had what was coming to them?

Please tell me you are fucking joking.

All right, I should have phrased it "You are a sick fuck because you justify the brutal murder of innocents to achieve your goals." To me, its the same damn thing.

My goals? Right. Again, you assume that which is not there.

Now  you are starting to sound like Gene. You make a position, and then when anyone makes an argument against that position, you slip and slide around. Whatever. You said "so they (the Japs) had what was coming to them." You also said that included innocent people.  Fuck you. Do you support the death penalty as well? Sure a few 'innocents' may be killed, but in the 'war' against murders you must do what it takes right? I know, I know,  I am ASSuming again aren't I? I don't fucking care? I set up a straw man as well. I still don't care. You are justifying the murder of innocent people. I don't care if you call it a war or not, its still wrong. We were in no imminent danger. The Japs were in negotiations to surrender. So what if it was not the right kind of surrender, we had already beaten them. At any rate the people who were killed were not attacking us. They were civilians. If it were a military target, I would not have  had as much of a problem with it, but it wasn't. The fact that we A-bombed them while they were in the process of surrendering is monstrous, and if you agree with that, then you are a monster.

How do you know? Maybe there were people there who did not agree with what was going on. By your logic everyone in America is responsible for the military adventurism of our military and if any other country who has been attacked by the US were to nuke one of our cities we would have it 'coming to us' as well.

"War is not who's right, but who's left." -- Bertrand Russell

So if I murder you then I am right if I label it an act of war. War is just a word. It does not excuse you from you actions.


Quote from: mikehz on January 13 at 10:56:22 AM

There are two opposing theories of modern warfare. The first is the political theory. It is to fight a “nice” war, careful to kill as few as possible, and not get too many people upset. The second is the “total war” theory, which is to hold your nose and get it over with, by whatever means possible.

Nixon and Bush are of the first theory, while William Tecumseh Sherman exemplifies the second. Sherman said, “War is hell,” and by that he meant that in order to win, it was necessary to completely destroy the enemy so as to break their will to fight. Otherwise, it just drags on and on and on, and victory becomes an elusive thing.

This is why the U.S. policy in both world wars was to fight for total surrender. The Johnson-Nixon policy of fighting a limited war in Vietnam lead to a world in which every would-be enemy figures they can eventually fight to a stalemate, with the U.S. eventually picking up their marbles and going home. I suspect they are right.

Never go to war, except when attacked and there is absolutely no other resolution. Then, if you must, get it over with as quickly as possible, and by whatever means necessary. Do this, and it will never even occur to anyone else to ever attack.

You had me right up until the "whatever means necessary" part. Japan was in the process of surrendering. At the time we bombed them, they had not surrendered on our terms yet, but we had beaten them. The war was pretty much over. The bombings were completely unnecessary. And we were  not attacking military targets.

I have a lot of respect for your opinions mike, I agree with most of what you have to say, but I am sorry I cannot agree with you on this one.

[Cyro]

What about British intervention in Poland at the start of WWII to prevent Hitler from expanding even further?

[Brian Wolf]

What about British intervention in Poland at the start of WWII to prevent Hitler from expanding even further?

What about it? My problem is not necessarily warfare, although I think its unfortunate, did the Poles want Briton's help? If so then that's fine with me.

My problem is with the deliberate murder of civilians. I hate fucking Nazi's, but A-bombing German cities to get revenge on them would not have been right either, it would have in fact made us worse monsters than the Nazi's were.
Besides, with Atomic bombs you are not just damaging the cities, there are long-term ramifications.

[Cyro]

What about British intervention in Poland at the start of WWII to prevent Hitler from expanding even further?

What about it? My problem is not necessarily warfare, although I think its unfortunate, did the poles want Briton's help? If so then that's fine with me.

My problem is with the deliberate murder of civilians. I hate fucking Nazi's, but A-bombing German cities to get revenge on them would not have been right either, it would have in fact made us worse monsters than the Nazi's were.
Besides, with Atomic bombs you are not just damaging the cities, there are long-term ramifications.

We had an alliance treaty with Poland and France.

The British air force was carpet bombing German cities throughout the war. Wouldn't that count? I'm not saying it's justifiable but if you're in a war that you cant just 'pull out' of then you have to do something.

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't been bombed, the war could have lasted years and killed 4x that number, not to mention the American presence is Europe by the fall of Germany was probably one of the most prominent reasons for Russia not attempting to annex the eastern European states.

Not everything is black and white.

[Brian Wolf]

What about British intervention in Poland at the start of WWII to prevent Hitler from expanding even further?

What about it? My problem is not necessarily warfare, although I think its unfortunate, did the poles want Briton's help? If so then that's fine with me.

My problem is with the deliberate murder of civilians. I hate fucking Nazi's, but A-bombing German cities to get revenge on them would not have been right either, it would have in fact made us worse monsters than the Nazi's were.
Besides, with Atomic bombs you are not just damaging the cities, there are long-term ramifications.

We had an alliance treaty with Poland and France.

The British air force was carpet bombing German cities throughout the war. Wouldn't that count?

It depends on whether or not they were strategic targets or if they were doing it to extract revenge.

I'm not saying it's justifiable but if you're in a war that you cant just 'pull out' of then you have to do something.

But Cyro, you ARE saying it was justified, aren't you?

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't been bombed, the war could have lasted years and killed 4x that number, not to mention the American presence is Europe by the fall of Germany was probably one of the most prominent reasons for Russia not attempting to annex the eastern European states.

Dude, the war was over, they had already agreed to surrender. All that was left to work out was the terms.

Not everything is black and white.

Obviously.

[velojym]

I won't even START to agree with some crusty old geezer's excuses for war until they pick up a rifle and LEAD for a change.


I still probably won't follow, but at least he or she will show that they're willing to take some risks themselves for the cause.
It's easy to wage war from behind a mahogany desk.

[Taors]

I agree with most of what Robert E. Lee said about war.

[cerpntaxt]

I agree with most of what Robert E. Lee said about war.

What did he say?

[Cyro]

It depends on whether or not they were strategic targets or if they were doing it to extract revenge.

Both, the could have hit the targets in strategic strikes, but they carpet bombed them,

But Cyro, you ARE saying it was justified, aren't you?

Depends on your definition I guess; I do tend to twist terms. Okay; it's not morally justifiable.

Dude, the war was over, they had already agreed to surrender. All that was left to work out was the terms.

On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and on August 9 another was dropped on Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945.

[Brian Wolf]

It depends on whether or not they were strategic targets or if they were doing it to extract revenge.

Both, the could have hit the targets in strategic strikes, but they carpet bombed them,

But Cyro, you ARE saying it was justified, aren't you?

Depends on your definition I guess; I do tend to twist terms. Okay; it's not morally justifiable.

Dude, the war was over, they had already agreed to surrender. All that was left to work out was the terms.

On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and on August 9 another was dropped on Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945.

They surrendered unconditionally on Aug 14. they had already agreed to surrender prior to the bombings, just on their terms. The history books kind of like to leave that part out though.

[Cyro]

They surrendered unconditionally on Aug 14. they had already agreed to surrender prior to the bombings, just on their terms. The history books kind of like to leave that part out though.

No, the peace talks were in progress but there was no 'agreement.' Japan could well have broken off from the talks and continued the war.

[Brian Wolf]

They surrendered unconditionally on Aug 14. they had already agreed to surrender prior to the bombings, just on their terms. The history books kind of like to leave that part out though.

No, the peace talks were in progress but there was no 'agreement.' Japan could well have broken off from the talks and continued the war.

Okay, but the point remains that it was not necessary.

[Cyro]

They surrendered unconditionally on Aug 14. they had already agreed to surrender prior to the bombings, just on their terms. The history books kind of like to leave that part out though.

No, the peace talks were in progress but there was no 'agreement.' Japan could well have broken off from the talks and continued the war.

Okay, but the point remains that it was not necessary.

Wasn't it? Playing the 'what if' game gets tricky; it's hard to say what could have happened. Japan could simply have bought time with e peace talks and hit key strategic points whilst the US was unaware.

[Brian Wolf]

They surrendered unconditionally on Aug 14. they had already agreed to surrender prior to the bombings, just on their terms. The history books kind of like to leave that part out though.

No, the peace talks were in progress but there was no 'agreement.' Japan could well have broken off from the talks and continued the war.

Okay, but the point remains that it was not necessary.

Wasn't it? Playing the 'what if' game gets tricky; it's hard to say what could have happened. Japan could simply have bought time with e peace talks and hit key strategic points whilst the US was unaware.

I suppose  you could say the same thing about Iraq. We might as well nuke em and get it over with. While were at it we can nuke Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as well. Hey, lets not forget about Iran, they might become a problem too. Oh, an South Korea, lets not let them off the hook. Where does it end?

What about the soldiers that gang raped that little girl? Is that okay with you? We are after all, in a war. Maybe if we rape enough of their children it would be as much of a deterrent as a nuke? Perhaps we should gather up all of the children we can find and flay them alive on national TV?  Or we could pour honey over an open wound and let fire ants eat them alive.
Would that not be a deterrent?
Is there anything that you would not do to innocent civilians because your country was 'at war' with them?