It is a shame that true conservative policy is being underminded by neo-conservative thought. And, to beat it all, neo-conservatives were mostly liberals before seeing our president's lack of knowledge in foreign policy and taking advantage of him. Current American foreign policy is shaped by neo-conservatives and Zionist Christians who have enflicted generations of foreign-relations damage in the Middle East. Until we realize the importance of non-intervention, Americans will be fighting a war against terrorism that has never been won throughout history. In the same process, we will be slipping from the tight grip of world superpower and into a economic and military dogfight with the Chinese.

It would have been immoral not to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

See, to me, that is scary. We should be remorseful for any life taken, regardless of the overall effect is has. I certainly do not consider it moral to incinerate babies and children. I am quite sure that my god wouldn't either. Was it necessary? That is another issue all together.

See, to me, that is scary. We should be remorseful for any life taken, regardless of the overall effect is has. I certainly do not consider it moral to incinerate babies and children. I am quite sure that my god wouldn't either. Was it necessary? That is another issue all together.

So you would choose a smaller number of Japanese lives over a far, FAR greater number of both Japanese, and American lives? :eek: That IS scary; and doesn't seem to be on the side of morality, as you suggest.

 

Also, the neccesity for the bombings cannot be divorced from any discussion of propriety or morality. Their necessity is the very thing that gave them morality.

Okay let me do what I can to shed some light on the comments I made.

 

 

From a moral standpoint in a time of peace, which is something that in my opinion is suspect to speak of where conflict concerned, killing someone (taking the life of another) is oft considered the height of immorality. Ergo the worst thing that someone can do is to take the life of another. War consists, at its most basic level, as a semi-organized (at best) state of being in which life is being taken relatively often. Thus war is the height of immorality as well. All sides in a conflict engage in such activity during said conflict and as such there are no "good guys" in that regard. That is my point.

This is why I am amused at the concept of moral high ground when discussing war. We like to cloak it in a veil of morality to try and make it look like we are doing something other than what we are doing.

In reference to the WWII veterans and those men storming the beaches, fighting the Japanese and spending hours in sub-zero temperatures to destroy enemy industries; I admire and respect them for what they did. Yes they killed the enemy (and killing is not a good thing, even though it is sometimes necessary, no matter how you cloak it) and I am forever grateful for the sacrifices they made on behalf of their country and their fellow citizens. If not for them and what they did, then the world would likely have been worse of than it was. At the same time those who died on the opposing side felt they were fighting for as "just" a cause as we did. The majority of the German soldiers were not fighting for Hitler, they were fighting for Germany. They were fighting for their families and for their homes. The majority were no more evil than our own G.I.’s over there.

Although when looking at our “noble” and “moral” actions in Europe we can’t forget the leveling of the cities of Würzburg, Dresden and the monastery of Monte Cassino. Also the fact that we allied ourselves with a man who was as bad as Hitler should also say something for the “moral” high ground we took. That said while I agree with those who say the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were necessary, I think to call them “moral” is somewhat off base. From a simple numbers perspective it was a wise move and the correct course of action. More would have died on both sides had we invaded Japan than died on account of those bombs. It was a choice that had to be made to end the conflict as quickly as possible. I have no problem with that choice.

I have spent nearly 20 years of my life studying weapons, war, conflict, its causes, effects and the overall impact on the development of the world. In all the time I have studied these are my conclusions. That said I am not anti-war and am far from a pacifist. I just dislike it when we try to take a "moral" stand when we are perpetuating death. The American obsession and idealism of the “good guys” and “bad guys” is irritating to me. The guys on the other side say the same thing, both can’t be right obviously, but can both be wrong? Of course from our own perspective we are right but at the same time they look at themselves the way we look at ourselves. Don’t try and disguise what it is, be honest about it.

Don’t take it for more than what it is. I am merely stating that the idea of calling someone the “good guys” in a war is suspect at best.

 

 

Do my comments make any more sense now?

So you would choose a smaller number of Japanese lives over a far, FAR greater number of both Japanese, and American lives? :eek: That IS scary; and doesn't seem to be on the side of morality, as you suggest.

 

Also, the neccesity for the bombings cannot be divorced from any discussion of propriety or morality. Their necessity is the very thing that gave them morality.

 

Their necessity made them prudent, not moral. It was a numbers game plain and simple.

So much to say, so little time -

 

In response to the post regarding radical Christians and Radical Muslims:

 

To suggest that there are not people who misuse the scripture for violence, oppression and injustice is simply put, NAIVE.

 

We have used scripture to promote slavery, racism, and theological superiority. The crusades are only one example of a war FOR God.

 

The Westboro Baptist people carry signs that say "God hates Fags" and Christians blow up abortion clinics. In our own State Capitol Building (Frankfort) Christians spit on protesters who were there to convince the legislature to not pass a law discriminating against Gays and Lesbians.

 

Falwell and Robertson preached sermon of hate when they claimed that the 9-11 attacks were a result of the "secular" lifestyle promoted by the US and that Katrina was also punishment.

 

Part of the NAZI belief was that the Jews killed Jesus and should therefore be eliminated. The KKK holds itself up as a Christian organization - tell me they are not terrorists.

 

Just as in Islam it is the radicals that get heard and the moderates have no voice. Most moderate Muslims do not adhere to a religion of violence against non-believers, and I would suggest that you have strongly distorted the religion.

 

Also, have you not read the old testament, where God told the Israelites to commite Genocide - to kill every man, woman, and child in a community? The psalmist talks about the need to bash the heads of the enemies children against the stones? Personally I don't take these stories literally b/c they cannot be reconciled with the God of Jesus in the New Testament - but to suggest that scripture is not there to support violence against non-believers is, well it is simply not true.

 

As for the MORALITY of killing innocent people to win a war . . .

 

Matthew 5:43-44 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Love your neighbor' and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies? Pray for those who persecute you! In that way you will be acting as true children of God.

 

Luke 6:27ff "But if you are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for the happiness of those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you.. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek. etc...

 

Dropping the bomb may have been the most pragmatic thing to do but to suggest that it was moral in the Western Judeo/Christian tradition - again is simply WRONG and nothing but hyperbole.

 

In all truth, it was a very political thing to do and had very little to do with the defeat of Japan, which would have occurred without the dropping of the bomb. The political thing was to demonstrate to Russia our nuclear capability. It was probably unnecessary, at least the second bombing, and the damage to humanity, God' creation . . . how you can call that moral is scary.

 

'kill them before they kill us' is not MORAL it is very HUMAN and self-serving. It is certainly not of the God of creation.

So you would choose a smaller number of Japanese lives over a far, FAR greater number of both Japanese, and American lives? :eek: That IS scary; and doesn't seem to be on the side of morality, as you suggest.

 

Also, the neccesity for the bombings cannot be divorced from any discussion of propriety or morality. Their necessity is the very thing that gave them morality.

 

I don't know, BF, soldiers lives vs. babies lives. I would say that most soldiers become soldiers to protect their families and the innocent. Most would probably rather be killed themselves than to have the horror of the atomic bomb befall their children, wives, etc.

 

I don't honestly know how God would view it, if either life is more important. I have no doubt, however, that the use of nuclear weapons on civilians is immoral. If we want to make the decision to use them, fine, but let's not mix it up and call it moral.

I should also add that I never suggested either would be a morally correct decision.

I don't know, BF, soldiers lives vs. babies lives. I would say that most soldiers become soldiers to protect their families and the innocent. Most would probably rather be killed themselves than to have the horror of the atomic bomb befall their children, wives, etc.

 

I don't honestly know how God would view it, if either life is more important. I have no doubt, however, that the use of nuclear weapons on civilians is immoral. If we want to make the decision to use them, fine, but let's not mix it up and call it moral.

 

It would have been soldiers lives AND civilians lives had Japan been invaded. More Japanese civilians would have died and more American soldiers would have died.

 

It is unfortunate that call had to be made, but in terms of cost of lives, it was the best decision.

I don't know, BF, soldiers lives vs. babies lives. I would say that most soldiers become soldiers to protect their families and the innocent. Most would probably rather be killed themselves than to have the horror of the atomic bomb befall their children, wives, etc.

 

I don't honestly know how God would view it, if either life is more important. I have no doubt, however, that the use of nuclear weapons on civilians is immoral. If we want to make the decision to use them, fine, but let's not mix it up and call it moral.

 

The last major battle of WWII was the battle of Okinawa. In that battle approximately 12000 US military, 66000 Japanese military, and 140000 Okinawan civilians were killed. If the US had been forced to invade Japan there was every expectation that the number of civilian casualties would have exceeded the number of military casualties just as they had at Okinawa. You implication that droping the bomb involved a choice favoring the lives of those in the military over the lives of civilians just can't be supported. Dropping the bomb reduced the number of lives lost in both categories.

 

Also, it's important to make a distiction between what makes an act a moral act and what makes it an evil act. I freely admit that dropping the bomb is a an act of great evil because it results in the deaths of thousands. However, as BF mentioned you can not divource the morality of the act from it's necessity. When one is required to choose between evil acts (dropping the bomb or invading Japan) the moral course of action is to choose the lesser evil. Therefore, while dropping the bomb represents a great evil, it was nonetheless moral.

I took a while to read this post several times before I responded to it, with the genuine hope that I might have just read it wrong and drawn an inaccurate conclusion. Having reached the same conclusion after reading it multiple times, I still hold the hope that with a bit of further explanation, you can tell me how I am misunderstanding your actual intent, because it seems that you are placing Christianinty on the same level as Islam in terms of generating radicals/terrorists.

 

As sad as it was to hear her words, I was able to forgive Rosie O’Donnell for making a similar comparison because her ignorance and agenda are overwhelmingly evident, whenever she opens her mouth. Whether knowingly or ignorantly, she is merely spewing propaganda that sounds plausible to an audience with no depth of knowledge, but to anyone with a clue, her words are horribly inaccurate.

 

The Koran/Q’ran is filled with numerous teachings advocating violence toward infidels. These teachings do not have to be taken out of context and amplified beyond reason to justify violence. Islam can be advocated as a religion of peace only if we are all Muslims. There is little room or tolerance for those who do not accept the teachings of the prophet. If anything, it is the peaceful Muslims willing to coexist with their non-Muslim neighbors who should be considered “radicals.”

 

There is on the other hand, nowhere in the Bible in which the teachings of Jesus explicitly instruct nor remotely imply the use of violence as a means of propagating the Gospel… ever.

 

The fact that kooks will twist virtually any message to justify their wicked deeds is well established. To say however, that “as long as you have Islam you will have radical islamists, same with Christianity,” is a misdirection at best. One faith clearly teaches that violence is acceptable, the other does not. The fact that violent radicals have claimed justification for their actions based upon both faiths is true. To suggest that both faiths spawn violent “radicals” is not true. There is nothing in true, Biblically accurate Christianity to justify radical terrorism… anytime… anywhere. The group who claims such authority is grossly (180 degrees) out of line with the teachings of Jesus.

 

The balance of your sentence reads, “so unless you can destroy Islam you will not be able to destroy the radicals.” Since this is the same sentence in which you draw a direct parallel between Christianity and Islam, it therefore seems reasonable to assume that you might also be implying, “so unless you can destroy Christianity you will not be able to destroy the radicals.” There are so many directions I could go here, but I will adhere to my original premise which is, “There is nothing in genuine Christianity that endorses nor encourages violent extremism. There is plenty in Islam to justify violence against non-believers”

 

If true Christianity is preached and followed, peace (except perhaps violence against Christians) is the result. If true Islam is followed, the only way peace may result is if everyone becomes Muslim.

 

They are not the same in any way.

I whole heartedly agree, thank-you for this post.:thumb:

Okay let me do what I can to shed some light on the comments I made.

 

 

From a moral standpoint in a time of peace, which is something that in my opinion is suspect to speak of where conflict concerned, killing someone (taking the life of another) is oft considered the height of immorality. Ergo the worst thing that someone can do is to take the life of another. War consists, at its most basic level, as a semi-organized (at best) state of being in which life is being taken relatively often. Thus war is the height of immorality as well. All sides in a conflict engage in such activity during said conflict and as such there are no "good guys" in that regard. That is my point.

This is why I am amused at the concept of moral high ground when discussing war. We like to cloak it in a veil of morality to try and make it look like we are doing something other than what we are doing.

In reference to the WWII veterans and those men storming the beaches, fighting the Japanese and spending hours in sub-zero temperatures to destroy enemy industries; I admire and respect them for what they did. Yes they killed the enemy (and killing is not a good thing, even though it is sometimes necessary, no matter how you cloak it) and I am forever grateful for the sacrifices they made on behalf of their country and their fellow citizens. If not for them and what they did, then the world would likely have been worse of than it was. At the same time those who died on the opposing side felt they were fighting for as "just" a cause as we did. The majority of the German soldiers were not fighting for Hitler, they were fighting for Germany. They were fighting for their families and for their homes. The majority were no more evil than our own G.I.’s over there.

Although when looking at our “noble” and “moral” actions in Europe we can’t forget the leveling of the cities of Würzburg, Dresden and the monastery of Monte Cassino. Also the fact that we allied ourselves with a man who was as bad as Hitler should also say something for the “moral” high ground we took. That said while I agree with those who say the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were necessary, I think to call them “moral” is somewhat off base. From a simple numbers perspective it was a wise move and the correct course of action. More would have died on both sides had we invaded Japan than died on account of those bombs. It was a choice that had to be made to end the conflict as quickly as possible. I have no problem with that choice.

I have spent nearly 20 years of my life studying weapons, war, conflict, its causes, effects and the overall impact on the development of the world. In all the time I have studied these are my conclusions. That said I am not anti-war and am far from a pacifist. I just dislike it when we try to take a "moral" stand when we are perpetuating death. The American obsession and idealism of the “good guys” and “bad guys” is irritating to me. The guys on the other side say the same thing, both can’t be right obviously, but can both be wrong? Of course from our own perspective we are right but at the same time they look at themselves the way we look at ourselves. Don’t try and disguise what it is, be honest about it.

Don’t take it for more than what it is. I am merely stating that the idea of calling someone the “good guys” in a war is suspect at best.

 

 

Do my comments make any more sense now?

 

 

 

 

You have things figured out. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in a war when you take off the American sunglasses. One man's radical terrorist is another man's martyr.

You have things figured out. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in a war when you take off the American sunglasses. One man's radical terrorist is another man's martyr.

By that logic, one man's sadistic war criminal (Dr. Joseph Mengele or Heinrich Himmler) is another man's scientist or policeman....

The last major battle of WWII was the battle of Okinawa. In that battle approximately 12000 US military, 66000 Japanese military, and 140000 Okinawan civilians were killed. If the US had been forced to invade Japan there was every expectation that the number of civilian casualties would have exceeded the number of military casualties just as they had at Okinawa. You implication that droping the bomb involved a choice favoring the lives of those in the military over the lives of civilians just can't be supported. Dropping the bomb reduced the number of lives lost in both categories.

 

Also, it's important to make a distiction between what makes an act a moral act and what makes it an evil act. I freely admit that dropping the bomb is a an act of great evil because it results in the deaths of thousands. However, as BF mentioned you can not divource the morality of the act from it's necessity. When one is required to choose between evil acts (dropping the bomb or invading Japan) the moral course of action is to choose the lesser evil. Therefore, while dropping the bomb represents a great evil, it was nonetheless moral.

 

IMO killing is never moral, though it may be just. There is a difference.

By definition, I guess it could be said that they were, though I don't think I'm going to get any argument that their logic was absurd and that Himmler himself was a mental dissaster. However, we did not fight Germany in WWII to defend democracy or stop the Holocaust. In fact, we allied with a Russia that was purging their own people on a similar scale. What I am saying is that in a war between two countries (take the current war for example), our occupation in Iraq carries the same negative impact for Islamic followers as 9/11 has for American citizens.

 

Personally, I believe that our retalliation versus the terrorists responsible for the September 11th attack is justified. I do belive, however, that with the current war in Iraq, that we have overstepped our boundries in acting as "world's policemen for democracy" and are stretching our boundries far too thin, ignoring the non-interventionist policies that have kept our country stable throughout its history.