Hillary "obliterating" Iran

[M.Dancer]

No one can claim to be pro humanity yet advocate standing aside while Hitler and Japan marched on.

[Wilber]

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.

What would you have done, smiled your way through the concentration camp gate?

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?

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.

Who's condoning war? I hate it as much as anyone. Wars happen because predators sense weakness. Be weak and you will have war.

[kuzadd]

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.

"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?

Edited April 28, 2008 by kuzadd

[Guest American Woman]

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

Who do you think is going to disagree with that? The difference is, you think because it's so bad, there should never be war. In a perfect world there wouldn't be. But this isn't a perfect world. So what is your answer to an attack; an invasion by another nation? What do you think Canada should do if it were attacked-- nothing? What would your answer to Hitler have been? Canada's answer was to help fight back. Are you totally disgusted with Canada for making that decsion?

[M.Dancer]

..... 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?

The US is bent on world domination and the extermination of whole ethnic groups?

Loosen the tinfoil hat, your brain is in danger.

[Wilber]

"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?

I don't know kuzadd, what's your response if someone attacks you, bend over? Would you moralize yourself into oblivion or accept that some things are neccessary to ensure your survival?

[August1991]

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.

Kuzadd, do you think it is possible to live in a society without prisons and without police?

Once you admit that society needs police, criminal courts and prisons, then you have made the essential acceptance of war.

[kuzadd]

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

Understandable. To question Hiroshima is to explode a precious myth which we all grow up with in this country--that America is different from the other imperial powers of the world, that other nations may commit unspeakable acts, but not ours.

Further, to see it as a wanton act of gargantuan cruelty rather than as an unavoidable necessity ("to end the war, to save lives") would be to raise disturbing questions about the essential goodness of the "good war."

I recall that in junior high school, a teacher asked our class: "What is the difference between a totalitarian state and a democratic state?" The correct answer: "A totalitarian state, unlike ours, believes in using any means to achieve its end."

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.

Any means to an end--the totalitarian philosophy. And one shared by all nations that make war.

What means could be more horrible than the burning, mutilation, blinding, irradiation of hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women, children? And yet it is absolutely essential for our political leaders to defend the bombing because if Americans can be induced to accept that, then they can accept any war, any means, so long as the warmakers can supply a reason. And there are always plausible reasons delivered from on high as from Moses on the Mount.

Thus, the three million dead in Korea can be justified by North Korean aggression, the millions dead in Southeast Asia by the threat of Communism, the invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 to protect American citizens, the support of death squad governments in Central America to stop Communism, the invasion of Grenada to save American medical students, the invasion of Panama to stop the drug trade, the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, the Yugoslav bombing to stop ethnic cleansing.

There is endless room for more wars, with endless supplies of reasons.

That is why the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is important, because if citizens can question that, if they can declare nuclear weapons an unacceptable means, even if it ends a war a month or two earlier, they may be led to a larger question--the means (involving forty million dead) used to defeat Fascism.

And if they begin to question the moral purity of "the good war," indeed, the very best of wars, then they may get into a questioning mood that will not stop until war itself is unacceptable, whatever reasons are advanced.

an excerpt from an article, perhaps howard zinn can help clarify.

[kuzadd]

I don't know kuzadd, what's your response if someone attacks you, bend over? Would you moralize yourself into oblivion or accept that some things are neccessary to ensure your survival?

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.

Edited April 28, 2008 by kuzadd

[White Doors]

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.

I get it.

So you make no distinction between say, murder one, murder two, manslaughter and dying of old age?

all the same after all wouldn't you say?

In the end, they are all dead, what difference does it make, right?

gee! that was easy!

[kuzadd]

Kuzadd, do you think it is possible to live in a society without prisons and without police?

Once you admit that society needs police, criminal courts and prisons, then you have made the essential acceptance of war.

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.

[White Doors]

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.

I see.

So morally Canada was in the wrong by declaring war on hitler in WW2? You have to believe that to be the case.

Morally, the North should have let the south secede in the US civil war so they could continue on with slavery, with you simplistic thinking, you would have to agree.

Here's a lesson you should have learned by the time you were in grade 6.

- War is terrible, alot of other things are worse -

get it?

[Wilber]

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.

Tell the Jews, Poles, Ukrainians etc. that WWII wasn't about their personal survival.

Your outlook is very simplistic as White Doors has pointed out. There are times when you are faced with balancing the immorality of doing something against the immorality of doing nothing.

[DogOnPorch]

kuzadd...you still show no sign of understanding nuclear weapons in even their most basic terms. You have no proof...nor does anyone else that Israel has nuclear weapons. There have been no tests, so these weapons are suspect to both Israel and the rest of the planet. If they have them, there's no indication that they actually work as the supposed designers want them to. We tend to suspect Israel of having nuclear weapons based mainly on probability. They have all the blocks...chances are they stacked them on top of each other.

Again, though...no testing...and if you've bothered to brush up on the wiki guide to nuclear weapons, you'd know that testing is a key element in this whole affair.

Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki...how would you have fought and ended World War 2 in the Pacific?? Take it from Pearl Harbor and bring it to some sort of conclusion...purely hypothetical. Or do you even have clue 1 as to how it all unfolded in the first place? I really think not.

------------------------------------------

Tora, Tora, Tora!

---Code words for the start of the attack on Pearl Harbor

[August1991]

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.

I don't think we're off topic at all. IMV, when a policeman uses physical force to arrest a hooligan, that is ultimately the equivalent of sending in the troops to attack an enemy.

While I would prefer to live in a world without police and armies, I recognize the fact that in this world, we need them to keep dishonest people in line.

As WD and Wilbur have pointed out above, to do nothing leads to a worse situation than to do something. There should be no doubt that a world without policemen would be a far worse world than one with them. IOW, a world with policemen is a morally better world.

-----

Kuzadd, you seem to find all guns morally repugnant whereas I think you should face the more difficult moral question of who holds the gun and why.

[DogOnPorch]

Howard Zinn

If Jane Fonda was a man...

------------------

If the gods had intended for people to vote, they would have given us candidates.

---Howard Zinn

[Bonam]

Morality may not be the primary motivation for war, but that doesn't mean that one can not speak in objective terms of the relative morality of different sides in a conflict.

If you are honestly saying that the world would be an equally good place had Germany won WWII and proceeded to carry out its various plans, I really don't know what to say. In fact, I probably wouldn't say anything, since I'd be dead, along with every other Slav, Jew, Black, Homosexual, Arab, Gypsy, etc on the planet.

A side which does not seek to commit genocide is more moral than a side that does. Germany was less moral in WWII than the allies, because 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. The allies killed as many as they had to to win, to destroy the enemies ability to fight, to do so as efficiently as possible, but not simply for the sake of killing. The allies did not follow a doctrine which encouraged them to eradicate any race or people. This can be clearly and objectively confirmed by the lack of evidence of extermination of racial groups by the allies, and the vast and irrefutable evidence showing the extermination of various racial groups commited by the Germans.

Thus, though morality was not the main motivation for the allies (self-preservation was), nevertheless, by fighting world war II, they fought for the cause of good, by fighting against the nation that would commit genocide against most of the human race.

[kuzadd]

Morality may not be the primary motivation for war, but that doesn't mean that one can not speak in objective terms of the relative morality of different sides in a conflict.

If you are honestly saying that the world would be an equally good place had Germany won WWII and proceeded to carry out its various plans, I really don't know what to say. In fact, I probably wouldn't say anything, since I'd be dead, along with every other Slav, Jew, Black, Homosexual, Arab, Gypsy, etc on the planet.

A side which does not seek to commit genocide is more moral than a side that does. Germany was less moral in WWII than the allies, because 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. The allies killed as many as they had to to win, to destroy the enemies ability to fight, to do so as efficiently as possible, but not simply for the sake of killing. The allies did not follow a doctrine which encouraged them to eradicate any race or people. This can be clearly and objectively confirmed by the lack of evidence of extermination of racial groups by the allies, and the vast and irrefutable evidence showing the extermination of various racial groups commited by the Germans.

Thus, though morality was not the main motivation for the allies (self-preservation was), nevertheless, by fighting world war II, they fought for the cause of good, by fighting against the nation that would commit genocide against most of the human race.

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.

A side which does not seek to commit genocide is more moral than a side that does. Germany was less moral in WWII than the allies, because 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. The allies killed as many as they had to to win, to destroy the enemies ability to fight, to do so as efficiently as possible, but not simply for the sake of killing. The allies did not follow a doctrine which encouraged them to eradicate any race or people. This can be clearly and objectively confirmed by the lack of evidence of extermination of racial groups by the allies, and the vast and irrefutable evidence showing the extermination of various racial groups commited by the Germans.

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.

[kuzadd]

-----

Kuzadd, you seem to find all guns morally repugnant whereas I think you should face the more difficult moral question of who holds the gun and why.

Actually you could not be more wrong!

enjoy the assumptions though.

[kuzadd]

Tell the Jews, Poles, Ukrainians etc. that WWII wasn't about their personal survival.

Your outlook is very simplistic as White Doors has pointed out. There are times when you are faced with balancing the immorality of doing something against the immorality of doing nothing.

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

Edited April 29, 2008 by kuzadd

[White Doors]

What simplistic pap

[kuzadd]

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.

Edited April 29, 2008 by kuzadd

[M.Dancer]

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.

aaaahhh....... there it is: war is about gain, not morals.

Why not ask why they hanged so many? Never the less, the above is irrelevant regarding the morality of the war given that the prisoners they removed were after the war.

[M.Dancer]

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

What proof do you have they were war criminals?

[August1991]

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!

If you say so Kuzadd, I guess that makes it true. Your simple-minded stubborness sadly blinds you to the far more difficult question of when the use of violent force is morally justified.

Kuzadd, I gather that you want to say that all use of force is bad and hence the US is just as bad as anyone else. IOW, you know your conclusion in advance and you want same way to prove it.