Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Is war about morality?

Poll

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


Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is war about morality?  (Read 9723 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

OttoVonGuericke

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2007, 12:01:41 AM »

It's simple. If country A attacks country B or population A attacks population B first then it's A that is the aggressor, thus violated the moral stance against committing acts of violence of any kind toward another population/country, so B's response can be anything from "ZOMG, RUN AWAY" to "We'll nuke your ass until your shit glows in the dark!" And why? Because when A attacks, being the aggressor, A violated the fundamental tenet of morality, which is that no one person has the right to harm the life of another for no reason what so ever, thus, A is open to all reprisals necessary to make A cease all hostilities and to surrender.

So your assumption is that morals change depending on what other peoples' actions are. Wrong. On top of that, you ignore my statement that countries, armies, and battalions are a collection of individuals in which each person is responsible for the actions they take. It is no more reasonable to start killing all of the black people as a "response" to the actions of one black person who mugged you on the street. It is just a title that people can apply to themselves or to others, it has no standing on whether or not your own actions are moral. I'm american, but that is only because I was born in america, not because I will mindlessly attack others if my government orders me to.

Your statements of the actions between A and B make sense on an individual level, and from a legal standpoint. But you have taken both of those and changed them to countries and morals, respectively. You have given no reasons for why morals are not involved in this situation except for "people should do this", and it's "normal" for a defender to do this. But what people should do to survive, and what people should do to remain moral beings are not the same things.

Quote
Tell that to the person fighting against an aggressor.

Okay, I will. Provided they don't shoot me on sight with the assumption that I'm an enemy combatant.

Quote
Simple, it's the implied sanction of aggression toward others. If you don't respond in kind to the aggressor insomuch that your response could be considered by yourself or others as lesser than the aggressor's actions, then it implies you are less valuable than the aggressor, at least to yourself, in that you do not seem to value your life enough to make sure it's not ceased by the lack of instigating an equal or greater force necessary to protect it.

The fact that you are using words like "considered" and "implied" proves that you are not talking about morals. Morals are constant. Otherwise, I could "consider" it moral to kill people with unibrows just because I consider it an affront. I don't know why I pulled that example out, but it could very well be what some people may think.

Quote
That's bullshit too. You have the right to your wealth if you earned it. You owe no other any part of your rightful property or life.

Yes, of course you have a right to it. You earned it, and someone taking it away from you forcefully is wrong. But giving it away to someone less-fortunate isn't wrong, and I would argue that it's right.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2007, 12:41:56 AM »

So your assumption is that morals change depending on what other peoples' actions are. Wrong.
First, how do morals change here? They don't, but they don't apply.

"Morality ends where the gun begins." -- Ayn Rand

Why did she say that? The reasoning behind it is very simple, because if you assume that survival is about morality, then you're assuming that which cannot be support in and of itself.

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

Now, why did old Russell say this? Because, even though he was a pacifist [to my knowledge], he acknowledged that when you're in a war, it's all about survival yet again.

Two totally opposing views in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics coming to the very same conclusion for the very same reason. If you're such an authority on morality, I'd like you to explain it.

Quote
On top of that, you ignore my statement that countries, armies, and battalions are a collection of individuals in which each person is responsible for the actions they take. It is no more reasonable to start killing all of the black people as a "response" to the actions of one black person who mugged you on the street.
Doesn't matter. From an individual case of a mugger to complete nations locked in life or death struggles, the result is the same. If there is an aggressor, the defender has the total right to reprisal with no limitations. This is know also the Castle Defense principle in law. You have the right to use any force to repel an aggressor. PERIOD AND END OF STORY. 

Quote
Your statements of the actions between A and B make sense on an individual level, and from a legal standpoint. But you have taken both of those and changed them to countries and morals, respectively. You have given no reasons for why morals are not involved in this situation except for "people should do this", and it's "normal" for a defender to do this. But what people should do to survive, and what people should do to remain moral beings are not the same things.
So, it's moral to let an aggressor hurt you? Right right.

Quote
Okay, I will. Provided they don't shoot me on sight with the assumption that I'm an enemy combatant.
You have to be aggressive to be an enemy combatant, dumb ass.

Quote
The fact that you are using words like "considered" and "implied" proves that you are not talking about morals. Morals are constant.
No, morals are contextual. Causality is the marker of whether something is moral or not. In this regard, the meter by which something is moral, may stay the same in this case, is it life or anti-life being the best meter for all moral propositions.

Quote
Otherwise, I could "consider" it moral to kill people with unibrows just because I consider it an affront. I don't know why I pulled that example out, but it could very well be what some people may think.
Morality does not pre-exist you, me, or Baby Jesus. It comes into play as an active mental exercise. Try again, Capt. Plato!

Quote
Yes, of course you have a right to it. You earned it, and someone taking it away from you forcefully is wrong. But giving it away to someone less-fortunate isn't wrong, and I would argue that it's right.

Only right if it's about benevolence, but it's done because you feel you owe it, then it's wrong.

And now lets get to the nitty gritty here. What you're assuming is two things.

1) Morality is some stone slab of shoulds and should-nots. Guess what? IT IS NOT THAT WAY. Morality is a very simple set of principles that allows you to gauge [e.g. CONSIDER, ZOMG, THINKING ABOUT IT?!?! NO WAI!] what is right and wrong in a given situation.

2) That some how morality exists as part of war. There is no such morality in war, otherwise it would have been concluded as such by a myriad of philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists and so on. Not a single one agrees with you. And you never even given one good damn reason to think otherwise. You want war to be some sort of gentleman's game. It's not. When you turn someone's head into a pile of red goo, you're in a state of doing such acts as a means to SURVIVE. SURVIVAL IS PRE-MORAL BECAUSE MORALITY IS NOT ABOUT SURVIVAL INSOMUCH THAT SURVIVAL CAN BE DONE WITHOUT MORAL CONSIDERATIONS AND/OR PROPOSITIONS. Therefore, any of your bullshit, backpeddling, down right fucking wrong assumptions about war, survival, and the like are totally fucking off the mark. Get your head out of your ass and think for five seconds about what you post.

In the end, there is only two conditions on war.

A) ONE SHOULD NEVER START ANY WAR. That's right, it means you should not do it? Why, because you would commit the act of aggression which is immoral for a myriad of reasons.

B) IF WAR IS DONE ONTO YOU, YOU SHOULD PROSECUTE A DEFENSE TO ITS FULLEST WITH NO LIMITS WHAT SO EVER. Yep, that's what I've been driving home here and you seem to be the fucking moronic dickhead that can't get a grip on that. You want defenders to act like, "Please let me live" and whatever. Guess what? Fuck your opinion on it. Why? Because if you even have the basic understanding of my points you would not be making such stupid claims to begin with.

Btw, I know you're the only one giving me - karma, so fuck off and die, jack ass!

-- Bridget
Logged

freedom geek

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2007, 01:01:53 AM »

Their are no good wars only bad wars and less-bad wars.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2007, 01:24:35 AM »

Their are no good wars only bad wars and less-bad wars.

No shit, but war itself is amoral since the act itself is about survival insomuch for the defender. A defender in any situation cannot be limited in his/her choices to ensure his/her life.

-- Bridget
Logged

gandhi2

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2007, 01:59:15 AM »

Quote
It's simple. If country A attacks country B or population A attacks population B first then it's A that is the aggressor, thus violated the moral stance against committing acts of violence of any kind toward another population/country, so B's response can be anything from "ZOMG, RUN AWAY" to "We'll nuke your ass until your shit glows in the dark!" And why? Because when A attacks, being the aggressor, A violated the fundamental tenet of morality, which is that no one person has the right to harm the life of another for no reason what so ever, thus, A is open to all reprisals necessary to make A cease all hostilities and to surrender.
Sure, but I want to know what's considered an act of aggression....for instance, in a world full of warring factions, is it an act of aggression to cut off any means of defense?

People don't usually take the time to learn the pre-history of WWII...Japanese forces were more than ready to ally with ANY faction so that they could just plain survive.  They had no tech advantage, and were at the mercy of diplomacy to keep their heads above water...that the Japanese generals were crazy kooks hell-bent on honor over life and just happened to pick the wrong side(meaning the side that would eventually lose) is no fault of the civilian populous.  I don't think you can viably justify the acts of aggression towards the civilians or state that the Japanese in general were overzealous fanatics, demonic and baby-eaters.  But historians have to, because that's the only way any person defending the US can cope with the things that a subjectively more moral country did under the motto "war is hell."

The situation leading up to the Pearl Harbor attacks was a series of continuous provocations.  Russia was ready to pounce on Japan after WWI ended, and with America cutting off the oil supply in Cambodia, they were pushed into a corner.  Rather than be left for any nation to pick off, the top brass made a strategic choice: ally with Russia, if we win, Russia will have ties to us which can slow possible invasion, if we lose, then at least our primary threat will be crippled, and our captors will be far across the seas.  This ended up being a gross miscalculation...to this day, Japan is a neutered nation, complying with anything any western country asks(see: whaling, disarming, trade sanctions and export exclusivities, war compensation), in addition to the fact that the society has become so brainwashed that anybody questioning the winner's version of the facts is ostracized as a Hitler-sympathist.  It is a culture taught to love their oppressors, and most are cow-towed and browbeaten, believing that the Japanese people deserved to be blown into oblivion.

I am not arguing that the Japanese were without aggressive acts, but I'm not going to allow everybody to just assume that their version of the facts, that is, the winner's version, is gold truth.  There is another angle, which Americans like to ignore, because the still feel like they are morally in the right.  It was easy to see that Hitler was bent on genocide...their was no similar circumstance with the Japanese.  We had to make up a reason to hate them...and in truth, it was as simple as the fact that their skin was yellow, and ours was white.

So, if we can agree that war is not about morality, only survival, why is it that I keep hearing how righteous and good America was(merely defending from attack), how evil and immoral Japan was(unprovoked aggression, just as bad as the Nazis), and how much they had what was coming to them?  You guys don't want to believe everything else the government tells you is correct...why assume that this history would be??
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2007, 09:51:03 AM »

Sure, but I want to know what's considered an act of aggression....for instance, in a world full of warring factions, is it an act of aggression to cut off any means of defense?
Any physical act of force. Pearl Harbor would come under this scope. For China's war with Japan, which could be considered more reasonably justified it would be their prior campaigns against them which were on-going up to Pearl Harbor at that time, just give a different angle to consider.

Quote
People don't usually take the time to learn the pre-history of WWII...Japanese forces were more than ready to ally with ANY faction so that they could just plain survive.
Of course, but we put an embargo against them, but that is not an act of war.

Quote
The situation leading up to the Pearl Harbor attacks was a series of continuous provocations.  Russia was ready to pounce on Japan after WWI ended, and with America cutting off the oil supply in Cambodia, they were pushed into a corner.
Our embargo of other products was a problem too, but not an act of war.

Quote
Rather than be left for any nation to pick off, the top brass made a strategic choice: ally with Russia, if we win, Russia will have ties to us which can slow possible invasion, if we lose, then at least our primary threat will be crippled, and our captors will be far across the seas.  This ended up being a gross miscalculation...to this day, Japan is a neutered nation, complying with anything any western country asks(see: whaling, disarming, trade sanctions and export exclusivities, war compensation), in addition to the fact that the society has become so brainwashed that anybody questioning the winner's version of the facts is ostracized as a Hitler-sympathist.  It is a culture taught to love their oppressors, and most are cow-towed and browbeaten, believing that the Japanese people deserved to be blown into oblivion.
It's kow-towed, but I won't nick pick that much about that. The problem here is that Japan prior to WW1 and WW2, and the Sino wars were leaning heavily toward fascism like the rest of the world, they just mixed their divine worship of the Emperor into it and got their special brew as it were of it. Their hostilities toward other Asian nations and ethnicities made it pretty unlikely that any reasonable American would want to ally with them. I mean would you want to ally with the Asian version of Hitler?

Quote
I am not arguing that the Japanese were without aggressive acts, but I'm not going to allow everybody to just assume that their version of the facts, that is, the winner's version, is gold truth.  There is another angle, which Americans like to ignore, because the still feel like they are morally in the right.  It was easy to see that Hitler was bent on genocide...their was no similar circumstance with the Japanese.  We had to make up a reason to hate them...and in truth, it was as simple as the fact that their skin was yellow, and ours was white.
That may be true to an extent, but they were also a hostile nation at that time with dreams of an empire stretching from China to the Hawaiian islands.


Quote
So, if we can agree that war is not about morality, only survival, why is it that I keep hearing how righteous and good America was(merely defending from attack), how evil and immoral Japan was(unprovoked aggression, just as bad as the Nazis), and how much they had what was coming to them?  You guys don't want to believe everything else the government tells you is correct...why assume that this history would be??

History in this respect has been fairly correct, especially when you look at their hostilities toward other Asians, plus I don't go toward paranoia that any government is out to rewrite history and knowledge itself. It's an existential claptrap and unfalsifiable.

-- Bridget
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2007, 11:00:00 AM »

Gandhi.

Japan was up to some heavy stuff pre-ww2.  Their aggression wasnt directed at us, but they were a warring nation to be sure. 
Logged

mikehz

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8033
    • View Profile
    • Day by Day
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2007, 12:04:43 PM »

Yes. Japan wasn't exactly all innocence and light.
Logged
"Force always attracts men of low morality." Albert Einstein

Johnny_

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2007, 12:41:30 PM »

Logged

Cyro

  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5491
    • View Profile
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2007, 01:06:29 PM »

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime."

~Ernest Hemingway
Logged

gandhi2

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2007, 04:11:29 PM »

Quote
Any physical act of force. Pearl Harbor would come under this scope. For China's war with Japan, which could be considered more reasonably justified it would be their prior campaigns against them which were on-going up to Pearl Harbor at that time, just give a different angle to consider.
So a country has the right to intervene in the wars of another country?  I can funnel money to your enemy, for the explicit purpose of buying weapons, allowing him more strength by which to aggress, and you are untouchable as an additional aggressors?  Can I say "bullshit," please?  That has got to be the most un-libertarian thing I have heard this month.  George Washington hoped that America would avoid "untangling alliances," simply because he KNEW this was not the case...even if we just had trade ties to other countries, if it was an official alliance, then we would end up in trouble for it.  Damned if this hasn't been true...we have oil interests in the middle east, so we are compelled to ensure that we don't lose control of that sector.

Quote
That may be true to an extent, but they were also a hostile nation at that time with dreams of an empire stretching from China to the Hawaiian islands.
Yet Britain received a free pass to colonize in India and South Africa.  France received a free pass to grow it's empire into Southeast Asia.  This is not an argument that because "everyone else was doin' it," that any of them should be absolved.  It is an argument that Japan did nothing worse than the rest of the world did, yet like most other non-Caucasian countries, they were allowed less absolution.

Quote
Yes. Japan wasn't exactly all innocence and light.
Uh-huh.....and can somebody name a country that didn't have it's own level of imperialism at this time?  I'm not claiming that Japan was innocent.  I'm claiming that they were not any worse or better than any of the allied nations.  And I am arguing that they weren't nearly as bad as the Nazi forces...victims of circumstance, rather than warriors of genocide.  It is completely a racial issue.  Examine the restrictions still on Japan today, compare to Russia and Germany, and hypothesize why it is that the two white countries, guilty of much more agression and receiving much less punishment(we didn't drop two WMDs on their capitals, right??), are to this day allowed much more military and commercial freedom.

The wars with other Asian cultures aren't nearly as bad as history has tried to make them be.  Japan's government is so broken and beaten, though, that they will pay compensation to any country that squeaks.  Right now, N. Korea is performing missile tests off the coast of Japan, and they are barred from taking any aggressive act, because of their history in WWII.  And every time they cry for the horrors of war from millenia ago, or invent new body counts, Japan tosses more money their way.  As I said, we had to invent the history that made the Japanese as evil as Hitler, and it's easy enough to do when the majority of the population is oppressed into self-hatred.  If we want to extend back to an initial act of aggression, perhaps we should look as far back as 1854, when US Commodore Matthew Perry decided that it was time to forcefully open up for trade a relatively peacable non-interventionist and isolationist country.  I realize that Japan was behind the times, so to say, in political ideology...the rest of the world was on an imperialist rampage, Japan was still in class-imbalanced feudalism.  But by fucking around with the natural development of things, the western world totally screwed up any chances Japan might have had to be a member of the modern "peaceful" world, instead of a victim of circumstance.

Quote
Japan was up to some heavy stuff pre-ww2.  Their aggression wasnt directed at us, but they were a warring nation to be sure.
And I'm challenging those who assume that America, Europe, etc, didn't also play their own large part in both aggressive acts and provoking acts of aggression.  Can somebody please tell me why internment was ok?  Is it that in Holocaust camps, the victims were eventually put out of their misery, whereas in America, we allow them to live with the horrors of complete dehumanization?

Gah.  This isn't going to go anywhere.  That's my rant, let's just leave it.  Bridget has accused me of being a CTer...it has nothing to do with that.  It is any easy enough logical conclusion: War is written by the winners, and the losers will submissively comply to whatever.  As I said earlier...I just hope that America NEVER loses a war; if it happens, we will feel the pain and pragmatism of the effects of it, for the very first time in history.  I don't want to be pissed off at the majority of you, but I just have to shake my head at the naivety...in all other instances, you agree that America is full of corruption, greed, and lies.  But this instance is somehow different.  I frankly wouldn't put anything past the country, from about the time that Hamilton started his ball rolling.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2007, 10:49:41 PM »

Quote
Any physical act of force. Pearl Harbor would come under this scope. For China's war with Japan, which could be considered more reasonably justified it would be their prior campaigns against them which were on-going up to Pearl Harbor at that time, just give a different angle to consider.
So a country has the right to intervene in the wars of another country?  I can funnel money to your enemy, for the explicit purpose of buying weapons, allowing him more strength by which to aggress, and you are untouchable as an additional aggressors?  Can I say "bullshit," please?  That has got to be the most un-libertarian thing I have heard this month.  George Washington hoped that America would avoid "untangling alliances," simply because he KNEW this was not the case...even if we just had trade ties to other countries, if it was an official alliance, then we would end up in trouble for it.  Damned if this hasn't been true...we have oil interests in the middle east, so we are compelled to ensure that we don't lose control of that sector.
It can be argued that we can sanction a defending nation politically and economically only because in this case the intent is to aide those who are victims to an aggressor. But that isn't the majority of cases with regard to wars, where often the aggressor is funded, and armed, by others. Which is the oddity here. We complain when a small country aides a group like Hamas whose technically is attacking an aggressor, but yet we fund an aggressor like Israel, China [modern times], and what not. That's where you have to acknowledge you can intervene only on the behalf of a defender nation, especially if it's weak. Consider it an extension of self-defense by proxy.

Quote
Yet Britain received a free pass to colonize in India and South Africa.  France received a free pass to grow it's empire into Southeast Asia.  This is not an argument that because "everyone else was doin' it," that any of them should be absolved.  It is an argument that Japan did nothing worse than the rest of the world did, yet like most other non-Caucasian countries, they were allowed less absolution.
As I stated before, this shows that the US as a nation has not integrated the concepts I've stated therein, but you have not invalidated our response to Pearl Harbor [a defender against an aggressor].


Quote
Yes. Japan wasn't exactly all innocence and light.
Quote
Uh-huh.....and can somebody name a country that didn't have it's own level of imperialism at this time?  I'm not claiming that Japan was innocent.  I'm claiming that they were not any worse or better than any of the allied nations.  And I am arguing that they weren't nearly as bad as the Nazi forces...victims of circumstance, rather than warriors of genocide.  It is completely a racial issue.  Examine the restrictions still on Japan today, compare to Russia and Germany, and hypothesize why it is that the two white countries, guilty of much more agression and receiving much less punishment(we didn't drop two WMDs on their capitals, right??), are to this day allowed much more military and commercial freedom.
IT's not really the degree, but rather whether such a nation has integrated the reality of the consequences of being an aggressor, namely that you are open game to any other possible aggressor (Dog Eat Dog principle).


Quote
The wars with other Asian cultures aren't nearly as bad as history has tried to make them be.  Japan's government is so broken and beaten, though, that they will pay compensation to any country that squeaks.
Actually, the Japanese don't squeak, they're often very vocal about issues, but they chose to create a constitution which bars their government and armed forces from taking aggressive stances or actions. Too bad most other nations don't take heed to it, especially how well consistent they are with it.

Quote
Right now, N. Korea is performing missile tests off the coast of Japan, and they are barred from taking any aggressive act, because of their history in WWII.
I would say North Korea is preparing for our (The US) possible invasion of their country, which could be validated or even invalidated by specific reasons, which I think are too complex to have in just one post.

Quote
And every time they cry for the horrors of war from millenia ago, or invent new body counts, Japan tosses more money their way.  As I said, we had to invent the history that made the Japanese as evil as Hitler, and it's easy enough to do when the majority of the population is oppressed into self-hatred.  If we want to extend back to an initial act of aggression, perhaps we should look as far back as 1854, when US Commodore Matthew Perry decided that it was time to forcefully open up for trade a relatively peacable non-interventionist and isolationist country.  I realize that Japan was behind the times, so to say, in political ideology...the rest of the world was on an imperialist rampage, Japan was still in class-imbalanced feudalism.  But by fucking around with the natural development of things, the western world totally screwed up any chances Japan might have had to be a member of the modern "peaceful" world, instead of a victim of circumstance.
Yet the people of Japan had free will as they do today, and even before we existed. This does not stop them from having the ability to stopping present tense actions, which are the ones that are pertinent in any proposition.


Quote
Quote
Japan was up to some heavy stuff pre-ww2.  Their aggression wasnt directed at us, but they were a warring nation to be sure.
And I'm challenging those who assume that America, Europe, etc, didn't also play their own large part in both aggressive acts and provoking acts of aggression.  Can somebody please tell me why internment was ok?  Is it that in Holocaust camps, the victims were eventually put out of their misery, whereas in America, we allow them to live with the horrors of complete dehumanization?
The Internment camps were wrong, but did not occur during the Sino-Japan wars. Again, context and timeliness are your friends.


Quote
Gah.  This isn't going to go anywhere.  That's my rant, let's just leave it.  Bridget has accused me of being a CTer...it has nothing to do with that.  It is any easy enough logical conclusion: War is written by the winners, and the losers will submissively comply to whatever.  As I said earlier...I just hope that America NEVER loses a war; if it happens, we will feel the pain and pragmatism of the effects of it, for the very first time in history.  I don't want to be pissed off at the majority of you, but I just have to shake my head at the naivety...in all other instances, you agree that America is full of corruption, greed, and lies.  But this instance is somehow different.  I frankly wouldn't put anything past the country, from about the time that Hamilton started his ball rolling.

Get use to the reality that all wars are total. If we do lose a war, many of us will die. Accept it as a fact of the horror of war, but also make that fact guard you against any delusions of mercy or kindness from others, and to prepare to defend yourself, your wife, and your own children from harm since life in such a situation is all that matters.

-- Bridget
Logged

gandhi2

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2007, 11:20:33 PM »

Already said I was done discussing this, but I needed to clarify what I was saying in one instance you seem to have misunderstood:

Quote
Actually, the Japanese don't squeak, they're often very vocal about issues, but they chose to create a constitution which bars their government and armed forces from taking aggressive stances or actions. Too bad most other nations don't take heed to it, especially how well consistent they are with it.
I was claiming that many countries in Asia argue for compensation owed by the Japanese to them(Korea, China, Phillipines), and they almost always comply.  Up to the end of WWII, there WAS no Constitution which barred/allowed much of anything...in the same fashion as we created "democracy" in Iraq, the Japanese were spoon-fed what they could and couldn't write into the new government.

That's all for now.  I just don't understand how you agree war is dog-eat-dog...and then continue to justify our dog-like aggression by claiming how much of a pitbull some other country is/was.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Is war about morality?
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2007, 12:06:07 AM »

Their provisos against aggression toward other nations was not spoon fed, they actively sought it as part of their surrender agreement. Originally, the US government wanted to leave what was left of the Japanese armed forces in charge and the like, but the people of Japan demanded that the US government aide in the disarmament of those armed forces and to over see their governmental reformation. Perhaps if you delve into that odd part of the history of their surrender, you would see that it was a direct response to the horror of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

-- Bridget
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Is war about morality?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 36 queries.