Subject:
|
Re: Lego Holocaust art (Was: can someone help me identify these parts?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:27:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
766 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:32:58 GMT, John DiRienzo uttered the following
profundities...
> > The only positive thing was the quick and rapid end to the war. I
> > still think that it could have been brought to just as rapid
> > a close had the numerous military and industrial targets been
> > hit. What US civilian targets were hit by Japan? None that I
> > can think of (excepting a rogue bomb here or there during PH).
>
>
> Well, the US has had the good fortune of not having many wars at home
> lately. It makes it difficult for the opponents to bomb our civilian
> targets. However, had they the good chance to do so, I am quite sure the
> Japanese would have. We didn't want the war here, and so we fought the war
> in a way to end it (and all wars, supposedly). To say the US should not
> have nuked Japanese civilian cities because Japan did not do the same thing
> to the US is the poorest defense for that argument I have seen yet.
Poor or not, it is actually a common argument, certainly amongst
pacifists. (Me, I am a proponent of the MIC).
Sure, the Japanese would have bombed US civilian targets had they the
capability to do so. That in is still not a justification (though you
are not justifying it with that example) for obliterating H & N.
The ulterior political motivations as suggested elsewhere, IMO, are,
if true, deeply unfortunate. The purpose of their use, to bring a
swift end to the war, could still have been accomplished (IMO), had a
non-civilian target been chosen. Though mankind has crossed the line
many times in the past, I find it deeply upsetting that *OUR SIDE*
chose to cross this one. (The British did contribute, albeit in only
a small way, to its development, and endorsed its use).
> > The 20th century has seen humanity take a great leap backwards
> > in terms of our "humanity." Chemical warfare, bombing of
> > civilian targets, etc.
>
> This is good debate fodder. This is the most ridiculous thing I have
> heard today. Humanity has not changed at all. Technology has risen
> immeasurably, producing things which humane people like, such as medicine
> and safe food. Also, it has helped create better weapons -which means more
> powerful, more destructive weapons to those who weild them. The people who
> have used weapons wrongly in the past are the same kind of (inhumane) people
> that do it today. Not all of us are animals.
No, not all of us are animals, but all of us do from time to time things
which make the last statement a little blurry.
> > > > Japanese surrender. Granted, what the Japanese did
> > > > throughout Asia was horrendous, and that it was war, but
> > > > that is no justification for incinerating civilian cities.
> > >
> > > I think it is.
> >
> > We will never agree on this point. Though personally, I am
> > upset that the cold war is over, and that the spectre of
> > nuclear anihalation is no longer with us, I cannot find any
> > moral justification for obliterating civilian targets.
> > War is hell, but leave the civilian targets alone!
>
> What? I am just torn up inside because the cold war has ended, too.
> Well, I can't find any moral justification for war, except to defend against
> an invader (of my country or an ally) which is exactly what the US did in
> World War 2. I don't like the idea of thousands dying at once (by whatever
> means) any more than you do, but in those circumstances, the US military did
> the right thing. Hope we continue to do it right, ally(1).
You seem to think that I believe WWII was wrong, period. Not correct,
just the bombing of H & N.
Though it will be impossible for either of us to prove otherwise, I will
still contend that the war could have been brought to as swift an end
had a non-civilian target(s) been chosen.
> 1) - not that anything the US military has done lately was done properly
> or to everyone's liking.
How lately is lately? 1983? The US Navy's indiscriminate shelling of Shi'ite
regions of Beirut after the embassy/marine barracks bombing, resulting in
10K+ killed?
Or in the past. Remember that both British and US militaries used soldiers
as guinea pigs to test the effects of blasts at great distances.
> --
> Have fun!
>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
54 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
