Hillary "obliterating" Iran

[kuzadd]

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.

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?

Edited April 29, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

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!

Edited April 29, 2008 by kuzadd

[M.Dancer]

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!

Excellent...all you have to do is show that the US knew he was a wr criminal before he escaped.

[kuzadd]

omg, your serious?

denial makes it all so easy, eh?

[DogOnPorch]

omg, your serious?

denial makes it all so easy, eh?

Barbie was recruited right after the war for his talents at spying. He was identified as the 'Butcher of Lyon' much later...and stood trial for it if I recall. But if you wish to play this game, numerous Nazis ended up working for or living in numerous countries post war...including the Arabs...and Canada.

Operation Paper Clip was about rocket scientists more than dyed in the wool Nazis. The Soviets were after them as well...this for the obvious reason that Von Braun and crew were super-brilliant and years ahead of everyone else when it came to all manner of rocket technology. Where would you have prefered Von Braun to have ended up, kuzadd?

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

That's one giant step for---man---one giant leap for mankind...

---Neil Armstong

[kuzadd]

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???

[M.Dancer]

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.

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???

Why? What lcrimes other than being on the wrong side did they commit? Should every German have been tried for war crimes?

[bush_cheney2004]

...If it was about morals, shouldn't they have been tried for crimes against humanity, instead of given a new life, in the US???

No, and this is the undoing of your position. Not only have you failed to define whose "morals" in the context of war (or peace), but by your own admission, only the victors could prosecute such alleged crimes anyway. The "moral" benchmark that you have tried to invoke is not absolute, and in some instances, quite irrelevant. Today's suicide bomber in a farmers market also believes he/she is acting "morally" according to their belief system.

Accordingly, and specifically with respect to "war", nation states have collectively defined illegal methods for prosecuting war and occupation, but cannot declare that which is "moral" or "immoral" any more than you can.

[Wilber]

War is fought for gain, plunder, resources, oil, water , strategic land, but not for good and bad.

Do you think it is immoral to defend yourself from those seeking to plunder you? Do you think it is immoral to defend others from being plundered? Do you think that it was immoral to stop a regime which was bent on world domination and the extermination of whole segments of society? Do you think it was more moral when the world stood by and did nothing while Pol Pot exterminated somewhere between one and two million Cambodians? Do you believe the world is correct in leaving the people of Darfur to their fate because it would be immoral to intervene there as well?

No one is trying to say that wars are good or that they are never started on false pretenses. On the contrary, the opposite is more often the case, but talk about simplistic and naive. Because Hitler invaded Poland on a false pretense, it was immoral for them to defend themselves or for others to help them? When US sanctions over the atrocities being committed in Asia by Japan caused them to attack Pearl Harbour, invade the Philippines and the rest of South East Asia, should the Americans have said, "so sorry, we can't have a war so carry on what you were doing"? Your logic is nothing more than a justification to stick your head in the sand and ignore everything rotten the world. "Eyee zeee naaathingg" as Sgt. Schultz used to say.

[kuzadd]

No, and this is the undoing of your position. Not only have you failed to define whose "morals" in the context of war (or peace), but by your own admission, only the victors could prosecute such alleged crimes anyway. The "moral" benchmark that you have tried to invoke is not absolute, and in some instances, quite irrelevant. Today's suicide bomber in a farmers market also believes he/she is acting "morally" according to their belief system.

Accordingly, and specifically with respect to "war", nation states have collectively defined illegal methods for prosecuting war and occupation, but cannot declare that which is "moral" or "immoral" any more than you can.

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.

[kuzadd]

Do you think it is immoral to defend yourself from those seeking to plunder you? Do you think it is immoral to defend others from being plundered? Do you think that it was immoral to stop a regime which was bent on world domination and the extermination of whole segments of society? Do you think it was more moral when the world stood by and did nothing while Pol Pot exterminated somewhere between one and two million Cambodians? Do you believe the world is correct in leaving the people of Darfur to their fate because it would be immoral to intervene there as well?

No one is trying to say that wars are good or that they are never started on false pretenses. On the contrary, the opposite is more often the case, but talk about simplistic and naive. Because Hitler invaded Poland on a false pretense, it was immoral for them to defend themselves or for others to help them? When US sanctions over the atrocities being committed in Asia by Japan caused them to attack Pearl Harbour, invade the Philippines and the rest of South East Asia, should the Americans have said, "so sorry, we can't have a war so carry on what you were doing"? Your logic is nothing more than a justification to stick your head in the sand and ignore everything rotten the world. "Eyee zeee naaathingg" as Sgt. Schultz used to say.

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?

Edited April 29, 2008 by kuzadd

[M.Dancer]

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.

your

Irrelevant, the war was over. Or with your dodgy grasp of history, do you think so many Americans died so Werner Von Braun could win the space race?

[kuzadd]

if it was only just that one guy....................

[Wilber]

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?

Who said all wars are justifiable or moral? On the contrary, I would say that most of the time the reasons for starting wars are not. I am challenging your contention that engaging in any war is immoral and unjustifiable. You have never answered one of my questions, you just ignore them and carry on spouting the same old dogma.

[DogOnPorch]

You have never answered one of my questions, you just ignore them and carry on spouting the same old dogma.

Same here. However, I think the rest of us are on the same playing field which says a lot about kuzadd's point-of-view on this subject.

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

Hippies are lots of fun, as long as they are not involved in commerce.

---Phil MacNutt

[Bonam]

thanks, it was not morality, that brought the allies to war.

Yes, morality was not what brought them to the war, but, as I explained, it was nevertheless a moral war to be fought. The fact that something was not done for a specific reason does not mean that the corresponding adjective cannot be used to describe it.

Germany followed a doctrine which promoted the extermination of the majority of humans on the planet??

Yes, the Nazi doctrine, and the way in which Germany was implementing it, included the extermination of Jews, Slavs, Blacks, Arabs, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and various other groups. Together, these groups made up a huge proportion of the world's population. Maybe it was a bit less than half, in which case the word majority may have been technically incorrect, but the point stands.

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?

Like I said, the allies killed people as much as they had to to finish the war as efficiently as possible. Clearly, nuking Japan was much more efficient than launching a conventional invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American lives. By killing beyond the necessity of war, I mean killing that does not help the war effort, killing of people that are not contributing in any way to the enemy's ability to fight, killing of people that are completely uninvolved, and may have even been on your side, had you not started killing them. For example, German Jews fought for and/or worked for Germany in all the previous wars that Germany had been involved in, just like any other members of Germany's population. If Germany had not targeted the Jews, and other ethnic/racial groups, for extermination, they would have fought for Germany in WWII just like in any previous war. By choosing to wipe out millions of people in this way, people that would not otherwise have been Germany's enemies, people who were selected for elimination simply based on their race or ethnicity, Germany chose to carry out Genocide, rather than simply warfare. As someone who frequently accuses certain nations of genocide on these boards, one would hope that you understand the difference between genocide and warfare.

This is not something that the allies did (with the possible exception of the Soviet Union, which was also responsible for many immoral acts). The allies conducted warfare. The Japanese they killed in the nukings of Japan died as victims of war, not victims of genocide. The civilians killed in bombings of German cities died as victims of war, not genocide. These people were contributing to the Japanese and German war efforts, respectively, and so their destruction contributed to the allied war effort. This may not make the actions "moral" by modern standards, but they remain significantly less immoral than the genocidal actions of Germany during WWII. Furthermore, the surest sign that the allies, unlike Germany, were not following genocidal principals was that, once they had Germany and Japan at their knees, they did not proceed to eradicate the local populations.

You have to understand the difference between a nation fighting for its self-interest, especially for the purpose of self-preservation, from a nation fighting based on principals of racial entitlement that included the extermination of other races. This is a very very clear divide and difference between the actions of Germany and the actions of the allies in these respects. Hence the difference in morality, hence why it was a moral war.

As for your point about the scientists.... yes, various other nations recruited German scientists after the war. First of all, that is unrelated to the morality of the war, since it happened after the war. Secondly, hiring someone with questionable moral background is much less of a crime than seeking to exterminate a race of people. And thirdly, many of the scientists named had nothing to do with the genocidal actions of Germany. Even though the actions of Germany during WWII were evil, that does not mean that every German who lived during WWII is evil. In fact, most of them were not. Only those that were directly involved with the undertakings of genocide, of their free will.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

I don't think you know what you are invoking....morality, amorality, or immorality. War is part of the human condition, and represents the full spectrum of any moral compass. Whose morals are you saying "war" doesn't measure up to?

Yours?

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.

Yet they did see fit to prosecute war crimes trials through execution (which is consistent with "war"). How can this be?

I don't think murder counts as a morally acceptable act, because if it was we wouldn't prosecute people for it.

Murder is defined by moral standards and context; you have not demonstrated that all "warfare" is murder, except in your mind.

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.

False.....war crimes represent illegal "warfare" or crimes against "humanity", not your subjective opinion of what constitutes "morality".

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.

Then why do we know so much about it (you forgot to mention Japanese human experiments, live vivisection, and germ warfare also being used by the US military)?

[kuzadd]

Who said all wars are justifiable or moral? On the contrary, I would say that most of the time the reasons for starting wars are not. I am challenging your contention that engaging in any war is immoral and unjustifiable. You have never answered one of my questions, you just ignore them and carry on spouting the same old dogma.

certainly not myself.

as for me not answering questions, when have you answered mine?

Was it you and honestly I can't remember, that said it was morally justified to nuke the japanese, and I said to you think the Japanese thought it was?

I didn't see an answer to that?

BC uses the analogy of someone going into a market and a subsequent explosion, and they would do this on the basis of perceiving it as moral, did the persons on the receiving end think it was moral?

This why I have an issue with using the concept of morality to justify war, because as is obvious , just following this discusson, what is moral is very subjective.

I believe at some point I asked you why do you think it was moraly justified, is it because you think it is? ( your perception)

Like the bomber in the market place, who thinks thier attack is morally justified?

There in lies but one issue in using morality to justify war. Each side doesn't think the other side is morally justified in their action. would you agree?

Bonam, (by the way I do understand your very well written post) grasps at least that the ww2 was not fought for moral reasons, but something good came out of it, in that lives were saved.

I agree that Hitler was genocidal so on one hand it was good, on the other hand the overkill on the part of the allies, went far beyond what was necessary, particularily in the use of 2 nuclear bombs.

There again is where morality is problematic.

That said, the higher moral ground in warfare is shaky at best, and is best used to get people on side.

In fact, this is exactly what Hitler did in ww2, he used morality, to portray the attacks on many peoples,as justifiable, and people went along, he did this by portraying them as 'less then'or inhuman or a threat, etc.,

So when I see posters saying it is moral to do the right thing, their own call for "the right thing" is morally subjective, since the right thing for them is not the right thing for others.

So since this is a difficult topic , I hope I have clarified my own thoughts or positions.

this should answer your question here

I am challenging your contention that engaging in any war is immoral and unjustifiable.

because what is moral and justifiable, is completely subjective.

Edited April 30, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

Same here. However, I think the rest of us are on the same playing field which says a lot about kuzadd's point-of-view on this subject.

does it say you ascribe to group think?

there are plenty of religious followers that all think the same thing.

which means what?

does that mean it is right, because it is "group think"

well that's not necessarily true, is it.

when I read your comparison of Howard Zinn = Jane Fonda????????????

Edited April 30, 2008 by kuzadd

[White Doors]

Those immoral Poles! How dare they defend their country against naked aggression from Germany!

Would have been much more 'moral' of them to stand down and let the Nazi's take their Jews away in 'peace'.

LOL

This simplistic type of reasoning is behind all that Kuzadd posts. And she thinks she is being unique, that is the funny part. Maybe Kuzadd is a hutterite?

No mention of the moral duty of a government to protect it's citizens from extermination?

I wonder if it's because that population was Jewish? Is that why your moral compass doesn't include them Kuzadd? They are not worthy of your 'morals'?

[kuzadd]

Those immoral Poles! How dare they defend their country against naked aggression from Germany!

Would have been much more 'moral' of them to stand down and let the Nazi's take their Jews away in 'peace'.

LOL

This simplistic type of reasoning is behind all that Kuzadd posts. And she thinks she is being unique, that is the funny part. Maybe Kuzadd is a hutterite?

No mention of the moral duty of a government to protect it's citizens from extermination?

I wonder if it's because that population was Jewish? Is that why your moral compass doesn't include them Kuzadd? They are not worthy of your 'morals'?

ya know why I ignore you by and large, but I am making an exception here.

because you like to use innuendo, and aspersions, but nothing else, nothing.

I will now go back to ignoring you, have a good day.

[White Doors]

ya know why I ignore you by and large, but I am making an exception here.

because you like to use innuendo, and aspersions, but nothing else, nothing.

I will now go back to ignoring you, have a good day.

Thanks for the admission.

[Wilber]

as for me not answering questions, when have you answered mine?

I did answer your question. You don't listen.

[kuzadd]

I did answer your question. You don't listen.

I can't listen , your not talking, your typing.

If I missed it, I do apologize, but, I did not see it.

[DogOnPorch]

does it say you ascribe to group think?

Only if seatbelt use is also 'group think'.

when I read your comparison of Howard Zinn = Jane Fonda????????????

If the shoe fits. It also fits yer Chomskys and yer Finkelsteins.

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

To be a revolutionary you have to be a human being. You have to care about people who have no power.

---Jane Fonda