kuzadd

question for you wilber: if someone was to stop the wars of plunder the US has recently launched, would you see that as justifiable??? or moral??? Or would you see that as immoral? which way would you see that? how then would you define the morality of that action?

I am in fact not trying to invoke a moral benchmark , since my claim all along is that morals have nothing to do with warfare. So thank-you, cause I have said there is no morality involved. the reality is since morality (truth, justice, fairplay, equality ) has zero to do with warfare, I would fully expect the victor would gain from their victory, and prosecute or not as they see fit. I don't think murder counts as a morally acceptable act, because if it was we wouldn't prosecute people for it. Since ww2 has been pitched endlessy as a moral or "good war" then the idea that the US employed , war criminals would be in direct opposition, to the "good war" ideology. which I may add, is why the US has worked so hard to keep that information out of the public eye , because it would be seen to be reprehensible.

http://www.operationpaperclip.info/ Operation Paperclip was the codename under which the US intelligence and military services extricated scientists from Germany, during and after the final stages of World War II. The project was originally called Operation Overcast, and is sometimes also known as Project Paperclip. Of particular interest were scientists specialising in aerodynamics and rocketry (such as those involved in the V-1 and V-2 projects), chemical weapons, chemical reaction technology and medicine. These scientists and their families were secretly brought to the United States, without State Department review and approval; their service for Hitler's Third Reich, NSDAP and SS memberships as well as the classification of many as war criminals or security threats also disqualified them from officially obtaining visas. An aim of the operation was capturing equipment before the Soviets came in. The US Army destroyed some of the German equipment to prevent it from being captured by the advancing Soviet Army. http://www.counterpunch.org/thieme08222003.html The United States and its western European allies agreed after World War Two to deny immigration rights and work opportunities to Nazis with scientific and technological expertise who were more than trivially connected to the Third Reich Over time the need for German proficiency in aerospace design, lasers, and other advanced research superceded moral concerns for what they had done during the war. Operation Paperclip was the name of the project that assimilated Nazi scientists into the American establishment by obscuring their histories and short-circuiting efforts to bring their true stories to light. The project was led by officers in the United States Army. Although the program officially ended in September 1947, those officers and others carried out a conspiracy until the mid-fifties that bypassed both law and presidential directive to keep Paperclip going. Neither Truman nor Eisenhower were informed that their instructions were ignored, and if there is a lesson to be learned from Operation Paperclip, it is that, as Elie Wiesel said of the Holocaust, the world can get away with it. Much of the information surrounding Operation Paperclip is still classified. Operation Paperclip wasn't simply about Rocket science, it was medical science also. clearly US officers knew the scientists had "more then trivial" links to Hitler. Which is why they went to such great lengths to circumvent their own laws. Then there was gehlen org. If it was about morals, shouldn't they have been tried for crimes against humanity, instead of given a new life, in the US???

omg, your serious? denial makes it all so easy, eh?

well MDancer, one of those bad guys aided by the US was Klaus Barbie, the butcher of lyon. bad enough for you? quick slip into denial mode!

what makes it true is reality, and nothing else. why you insist on talking apples and oranges is beyond me. hmmm, have I said somwhere, all use of force is bad? nope. Also this has nothing to do with the US soley. but , by all means have fun with the assumptions. how about this august , explain to me, then why the US aided nazi criminals after the war?

question: for all the morality of ww2, or alleged morality? why did the US smuggle out so many nazi war criminals after the war? to the US? to South America? Operation Paperclip Isn't that morally reprehensible, in light of the massive attrocities perpetuated by these men. why did the US use them to build thier early spy agencies? Brigadier General Reinhard Gehlen? where was the morality in that? Given that this was alleged to be the "good war" and these were really evil, deviant men. Isn't that strange behaviour on behalf of the US? Or is it as I have said, all along, for gain? That the US has something to gain in aiding these murderous men? knowledge, information, intelligence. Our Nazi allies http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000...nazi/index.html aaaahhh....... there it is: war is about gain, not morals.

actually it is your view that is both extremely simplistic and very naive. This is why you cannot grasp the arguement. You are so soundly indoctrinated, that it's beyond your thought capacity. and I am not trying to be rude. so I will make it as plain as I can, there is no moral righteousness in war. Wars are not fought for good vs bad. Good guys vs bad guys That is simplistic and naive. War is fought for gain, plunder, resources, oil, water , strategic land, but not for good and bad. It always has been and always will be! To believe otherwise is where the simplistic naive thinking lies. This is what also allows one to swallow nonsense and believe baloney. Because people like you "believe" such nonsense, wars can be pitched to you ( sold) on the basis of good vs bad. Well we have to attack Iraq, because, "they can launch an attack in 20 minutes" LOL! We have to attack Iran, cause they have nukes, and they are bad, bad and irrational and they have nukes. but they don't We have to fund the Contras , cause they are "freedom" fighters, but they weren't, they were murdering rapists. We have to remove Aristide because he was whatever, but to this day, the people of Haiti who elected him not once, but twice, are protesting in the streets wanting him back. Everybody is a "bad guy" when the powers that be want you to believe that they have to do the "right" thing. It works the same way everytime. I'll use one quote here: "There is endless room for more wars, with endless supplies of reasons." not facts, not truths, reasons (excuses, justifications) and you wilber will not ask a question, you will simply believe

Actually you could not be more wrong! enjoy the assumptions though.

actually I am saying none of the above words you are using. but you understand what I am saying right here: "Thus, though morality was not the main motivation for the allies (self-preservation was)" thanks, it was not morality, that brought the allies to war. It in fact never has been morality, in any war, that has been the cause celebre of war. War has always ,will be always, about plunder and gain, wether it is a piece of land, resources, riches, but morals never ever factor into the reason to go to war!! The "morality"is the sales pitch to the masses to justify the attrocities. The good war The war to end all wars Operation enduring freedom Operation Iraqi freedom slogans, every last one of them, sales pitches to make you feel better about the murder done on behalf of you and your state. War is not ever fought for moral reasons and can never be claimed to have been fought for moral reasons. Germany followed a doctrine which promoted the extermination of the majority of humans on the planet?? Germany killed people by the millions, beyond the necessity of war. Like the US in vietnam, or Korea, or Iraq, right now? Like Japan ww2, two nukes were surely not at all necessary. Unless you "believe" that, like a religious indoctrination? Ever see the movie "Fog of war"? Former secretary of defence Robert McNamara , makes it quite clear that the US had they not been on the winnning team , would have certainly been tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He also recounts extensively the numbers of Japanese murdered in their beds by the massive firebombings even before the nukes.

I think again we are off on another topic, my point is war is immoral, it is not fought for moral reasons and never has been. I disagree with the use of "morality" to justify war, and morality is never actually a concern, not in past nor in the present.

ensuring MY OWN personal survival is not the issue we have been discussing. morality of war, the oxymoron that it is, is what we have been talking about.

for wilber: are you familiar with Howard Zinn? I absolutely love this man! http://www.commondreams.org/views/073000-108.htm The Bombs Of August That was at the start of World War II, when the Fascist states were bombing civilian populations in Ethiopia, in Spain, in Coventry, and in Rotterdam. President Roosevelt called that "inhuman barbarism." That was before the United States and England began to bomb civilian populations in Hamburg, Frankfurt, Dresden, and then in Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. an excerpt from an article, perhaps howard zinn can help clarify.

"And you are so bloody self righteous that you pass judgment on people who have been bombed and seen their friends families killed by regimes bent on world domination and the extermination of whole ethnic groups. " You don't even grasp in the above sentence you could very well be speaking of the US , do you? never even occured to you did it? You can't see your own self-righteousness, can you? because you call those same attrocities morally necessary. As long as the "right" side is doing it. Is this concept so difficult to understand, for you? Which is why I keep saying there is NO morality in war, NONE. war is insane, irrational, immoral, destructive, environmentally catastrophic. It causes good people to become killers, it destroys families and is horrific. It causes otherwise decent people to believe that killing innocent people is justified, in the name of "righteouness right wilber?

is that relevant to the news story? why do you even ask that? Is anyone's life here any of your business at all?

no actually you say carry on, to killing many everywhere and you call it moral. Not me. I am strenuously pro-peace, pro-humanity and hate bullshit, you on the other hand postively bath in false moralities, as long as you deem it "moral".

oh look a name caller, what's the matter can't face your own hypocrisy? Actually it is persons such as yourself, who find solace in ignorance ,false morality manipulations by the state and the powerbrokers of the world. Until then you will find yourself a dutiful little non-thinking follower. The biggest holocaust deniers are persons like yourself, who condone war and killing of civilians by calling them moral necessities, or "collateral damage" what the hell does that mean? You ever ask yourself , what that really means?

Yes, because when the population has to face up to the fact that millions died in their names, then morality has to come into play. It has to be used, to justify, all the killing.

You think war is moral and that is irrational, actually war is irrational and immoral. You continue to equate war with morality, and if you deem it as acceptable morally, then apparently it is, according to you anyway. But do you think the Japanese people think it was a moral decision, to kill so many civilians? Imagine the Japanese after Hiroshima or Nagasaki or the firebombings, "well ya know , morally it was the right thing to do to end the war" Ya think they said that? Really? How about the survivors of Dresden, do you think they thought the US had a moral right to obliterate them? How about Iranians, do you think someone from another country has a moral right to obliterate numerous innocents? How about the Iraqis? How about all the Afghans? Do you think they see the morality in all their deaths? The necessity, the justification?? Yet you do, right? wilber, I don't condone the killing of anyone. I am not saying what hitler did acceptable, but if it was wrong for him to kill, so many , how is it ok for others to do just that? War is not about that kind of stuff, it is not about good and bad, that is for your benefit, to make you accept the killing of "others". That is how Hitler did what he did , by portraying his victims as "others" and the good germans went along with it, cause it was not them. Just like now. It is the same old, same old, all through history. War as I said is about geopolitical strategy, resources, land, power. But morality , good and bad??? nothing to do with it.

dop: read the first two sentences again. having "something" is a hell of a lot better then having nothing isn't it? In otherwords, like so many posters here, the mere thought of something possibly happening is enough to keep them in a perpetual state of fear.

having "something" is a hell of a lot better then having nothing isn't it? In otherwords, like so many posters here, the mere thought of something possibly happening is enough to keep them in a perpetual state of fear. I don't think the issue of the weapons being tested is relevant, they gott'em and major major damage will ensue, it's enough.

Stop thinking of war in a moral light, it's irrational. I'll note that you thought it was perfectly "moral" to obliterate the Japanese with nukes and it was perfectly moral to kill hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Germans in firebombings in their homes, was that "moral"??? well was it wilber, was it moral??? Do you seriously believe that? Or was it targetting civilians as a demoralizing warfare tactic? Or was Hitler killing communists, socialists, mentally handicapped , homosexuals and Jews , as a tactic of scapegoating others??? Having a bad boogey man to blame for the ills of the country? It helps to divide and distract the population, sound familiar at all?? It should. think about it????

for dop: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/...gic/index.shtml archived at this site, it's interactive or you can use the flash version.

Yeah I noticed Stephen Harper was playing to the audience with his NAFTA comments, hilarious. Cause he won't do a darn thing. As for the psy-op's on the western world, and that 's is what they were, sad, sad,sad.

'Regulus de Leo' other posters here would dispute that. as opposed to western racism, totalitarianism, treaty-breaking and attempts to dominate the ME and Asia?? hilarious!