"Dumb and Dumber"- Are Americans hostile to knowledge?

[paulb]

a civilian target

Japan, like germany,  some  were actual *innocent civilians*, many other were not so innocent.
Just as when the militant islamic nations get dealt with, the many who die will be *soldiers to a  cause*.
They say with with mouth *but we really don't want to be part of the radical elements of islam, we are caught up in it*.
yet what's actually in the hearts is another matter.

[head-case]

You also missed the post where I asked you to explain under what scenario the first use of a nuclear weapon against a civilian target could possibly be morally justifiable. Your failure to respond is glaring.

I have addressed this point already.  I can't imagine a situation where it would be justified today.  I have already given my reasons for believing it may have been justified in 1945.

[MishaK]

I have addressed this point already.  I can't imagine a situation where it would be justified today.  I have already given my reasons for believing it may have been justified in 1945.

I didn't see anything even romtely approaching a successful moral justification. Please refer me to any post where you did provide such a moral justification, I must have missed it.

[paulb]

  I can't imagine a situation where it would be justified today. 

What planet do you live on?

Now i admit most of the poorest islamics cannot read the history books, but those that can had better read up on what happened to germany russia and japan. And these more educated ones can bring up to date the others who are unaware of the fate of these 3 countries.
of course i doubt if it will do much good. They acn see for themeselves the results of a  bad attitude in syria, iraq, and many other mideast nations.
they had fair warning. Doesn't takea   genius to connect the dots, when the complete color picture is right in front of their eyes..

My perspective has  nothing to do with my christian POV.

[Florestan]

My perspective has  nothing to do with my christian POV.

You have a Christian POV? 

[head-case]

I didn't see anything even romtely approaching a successful moral justification. Please refer me to any post where you did provide such a moral justification, I must have missed it.

I don't consider whether you agree to be the criteria for whether something is morally justified.  Honestly, I don't see any reason to continue this pointless argument.

[MishaK]

I don't consider whether you agree to be the criteria for whether something is morally justified.  Honestly, I don't see any reason to continue this pointless argument.

Well then it stands at the following: you think that it is morally right to condemn a civilian population to firey death and years of poisoning just because doing so might save a few lives of an army bent on invading said country. You think that is morally correct?

[drogulus]

I don't mind tactlessness as such since I can be quite tactless and direct myself. I just fin it totally boring when people who have run out of arguments can't come up with anything better than calling every German in sight a "Nazi". Which is something which, BTW, happens to me a lot, but exclusively only in one country: the US. And exclusively only from Americans. Nobody has ever given me the Hitler salute in my life before I came here, in the US that has happened at least half a dozen times. That in itself is very telling.

     I don't suppose a European would think it appropriate to give a NAZI salute to a German. After all, many Europeans have family members who fought alongside the Germans in the war. Others fought on the other side, or both sides, and even with all the ethnic cleansing that happened during and after the war it's not a safe assumption that the person you're saluting shares your attitudes about what happened.

    After the first day at Pearl Harbor the war took place far from where Americans lived. That's doesn't excuse such boorishness but it serves as a partial explanation. You're probably aware that Americans with German names get this treatment, too.

[head-case]

Well then it stands at the following: you think that it is morally right to condemn a civilian population to firey death and years of poisoning just because doing so might save a few lives of an army bent on invading said country. You think that is morally correct?

The fact that you would claim that this statement follows from anything I've posted here indicates how pointless it would be to continue this so-called discussion.

[drogulus]

Well then it stands at the following: you think that it is morally right to condemn a civilian population to firey death and years of poisoning just because doing so might save a few lives of an army bent on invading said country. You think that is morally correct?

     It's strange that you imagine that the U.S. Army was bent on invading Japan. Isn't it clear that they would do anything that would force a Japanese surrender, but that the option of invasion was contemplated with horror after Iwo Jima and Okinawa? If a Japanese surrender could be forced at a lower cost in lives than an invasion it had to appear to be the better option. The question that concerns me is whether bombing was a better option for the Japanese as well in terms of lives saved. Very likely it was, though that was not the reason the decision was made.

[BorisG]

The fact that you would claim that this statement follows from anything I've posted here indicates how pointless it would be to continue this so-called discussion.

Unknowingly, you may have stumbled upon something. As with most lunatical threads, I have noticed several reasonable assertions that have been totally ignored.

[MishaK]

     It's strange that you imagine that the U.S. Army was bent on invading Japan. Isn't it clear that they would do anything that would force a Japanese surrender, but that the option of invasion was contemplated with horror after Iwo Jima and Okinawa? If a Japanese surrender could be forced at a lower cost in lives than an invasion it had to appear to be the better option. The question that concerns me is whether bombing was a better option for the Japanese as well in terms of lives saved. Very likely it was, though that was not the reason the decision was made.

Oh, it's not that I imagine that. Head-case somehow thinks he's presented a coherent, morally defensible case for dropping the bomb on H & N, when ihn fact he didn't.

[M forever]

Sorry, I must have missed the memo which appointed you as the arbiter of who is allowed to make moral judgments. 

There was no memo, but he actually *explained* his point.

I don't suppose a European would think it appropriate to give a NAZI salute to a German. After all, many Europeans have family members who fought alongside the Germans in the war. Others fought on the other side, or both sides, and even with all the ethnic cleansing that happened during and after the war it's not a safe assumption that the person you're saluting shares your attitudes about what happened.

After the first day at Pearl Harbor the war took place far from where Americans lived. That's doesn't excuse such boorishness but it serves as a partial explanation. You're probably aware that Americans with German names get this treatment, too.

I have never seen that, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Many Americans still are openly racist, and mighty proud of it. Like you. That has nothing to do with how far away the war was. For most of us today, it is just as far away in time. Only a few of those who lived through those times are still with us.

Your first paragraph also contains some elements of more than latent racism and primitive tribal group thinking. What someone's family members may have done 2, 3 generations ago has little or nothing to do with what a person is or does today. Several members of my family were actually openly opposed to the Nazi regime and paid for that with their lives (my mother's uncle and his son) - that doesn't make me or any other member of my family resistance heroes. Besides, many Americans, among them rather prominent personalities, shared the Nazis' views - after all, it was a country which had had a very long history of racial legislation - which they kept for even almost a quarter of a century after Hitler put the pistol in his mouth. Depending on how old you are, you may even have witnessed and tolerated that yourself. How old are you?

[M forever]

Japan, like germany,  some  were actual *innocent civilians*, many other were not so innocent.
Just as when the militant islamic nations get dealt with, the many who die will be *soldiers to a  cause*.
They say with with mouth *but we really don't want to be part of the radical elements of islam, we are caught up in it*.
yet what's actually in the hearts is another matter.

Sure and you provincial, uneducated idiot who "has met 2 or 3 "islamics"", you know what's "in their hearts". You make me really sick.

Now i admit most of the poorest islamics cannot read the history books

That is actually something you share with those people. It is therefore not surprising that you have much more in common with them than you even realize.

My perspective has  nothing to do with my christian POV.

Which "Christian POV" is that? The one about love, forgiveness and tolerance? Refresh my memory, again where did Jesus say "if they suffer, that's because they asked for it"?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

donwyn, sorry you're disqualified from making moral judgments if you don't see the fundamental categorical difference between nukes and hand grenades. A hand grenade (intended for use in close combat) has a very small radius of lethality and can be directed against a member of the opposing armed forces. In a war it is perfectly legitimate to target the soldiers of the opposing side. A nuclear weapon lacks such limited precision. It just eradicates everything within an enormous radius and then poisons it for years to come. It does not distinguish between military and civilian. It's a doomsday weapon. It has no conceivable morally justifiable use. Any use of one is pretty much per se a war crime.

You're letting your tunnel vision get the best of you, O Mensch. You're forgetting a key element: context.

You act as if the US decision to drop the bomb sprang from soulless, heartless entities without a care for the consequences. That's not true. You said it yourself: there were those in the top US ranks who forwarded dissenting votes. So it obviously wasn't an easy decision. Obviously.

And the need to even contemplate committing such an act sprang from concerns over war. Not some arbitrary, harmless scenario.

And besides, there are any number of weapons that lack "limited precision" (so I'm not sure what you're driving at). Blanket, high-altitude firebombing among them. And that's what the Japanese were facing in the wake of the capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Endless barrages of night and day air raids - aimed at both military and civilian targets alike with bombs being scattered all over the place. I don't see any advantage or lessening of Japan's misery with this tactic. In reality, the casualties would undoubtedly have been much GREATER seeing as the timetable for such an operation would have spanned months if not years. Yet somehow being conventional means it's all right. I simply don't understand this...

On top of all this, add the monumentality of a full-scale invasion. Shudderrrrrr.... Bodies piled on bodies on both sides. Gruesome.

You simply can't blame any military for not wanting to subject their already weary forces to such a lethal slug-fest. And one that might not even be successful too boot. And that's a reality. It's safe to say the lessons and black eyes of 'Island Hopping' were not lost on the top US commanders. Broaden the scope to include an entire country - one full of the staunchest of defenders - and the outlook isn't very pretty.

And as far as picking civilian targets for the two bombs: how is that different than the widespread conventional tactic of blanket firebombing? It's a valid military ploy to bomb-out civilian targets for one very important reason: to sink moral. No secret in that. It's a way to bypass the military hierarchy and get to the mindset of the population. Especially when said military has proven itself fanatical and suicidal. Lengths the more levelheaded (and populous) denizens might not be willing to stoop to.

So obviously it was hoped that the two bombs would cause such an outcry amongst the civilian population that the regime would be forced to listen. And it worked. Just as months or years of firebombing and invasion eventually would have done.

And as I said, it was a very unfortunate oversight that no one knew about the long-term consequences of nuclear fallout. No one could have guessed it. The bomb had never been deployed on humans before. And dropping it in an open, vacant expanse would have netted zero. There had to be something for the Japanese high-ups to look at. Sad as it is to say...

I hate to posit numbers on casualties like it's a debit chart or something but I can't help but believe the lesser of the two evils - for BOTH sides - were the bombs. Even though it leaves a terribly bad taste in my mouth to put it in those terms...

**And a postscript to those who feel all us Americans are blind and such: it thrills me to no end that Custer got his comeuppance at Little Big Horn. It was a beautiful thing. The only regrettable thing is that the Native American population back then lacked a nuke with which to ward off the white aggressors. That would have given us pause!   

[orbital]

I've just finished watching the HBO documentary "White Light - Black Rain. The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"  (it is available on stage6.com for anyone interested), and there are two things (apart from the aftermath of course) that impressed me the most. The first one is Truman's address after the first bomb was dropped. It is either that the American government really had no idea  how much damage these bombs would inflict, or that they have committed one of the biggest atrocities ever recorded. The way he talks about the bombing, and that this is just a beginning and more powerful ones are coming makes me want to believe that the first was the case  But on the other hand his comment about how "the Japanese have now paid for Pearl HArbor-manyfold" makes me think otherwise.
The second is how the Japanese people, not the government and the army, but the people affected took the tragedy and basically that they blamed their own government more than they did USA.

It is a very powerful documentary, but not for the faint of heart.
Here is the link:
http://www.stage6.com/History---World-War-II/video/2158981/White-Ligh-Black-Rain

[paulb]

Which "Christian POV" is that? The one about love, forgiveness and tolerance? Refresh my memory, again where did Jesus say "if they suffer, that's because they asked for it"?

amazing , the ones who  know about history, read all the books, are the ones who can;'t really understand what happened.
That takes psychology to do that, but not the kind they teach in the universities.
"The Christ who preaches love, blah, blah, blah"
Give me a  break, as a  german you more than  all of us here should know better than painting Jesus in such pastel/pinkish colors.
Go back and re-read your history books.
Afterwards go preach the message to the islamics, apparently they did not get the message either.

[drogulus]

Many Americans still are openly racist, and mighty proud of it. Like you. That has nothing to do with how far away the war was. For most of us today, it is just as far away in time. Only a few of those who lived through those times are still with us.

Your first paragraph also contains some elements of more than latent racism and primitive tribal group thinking. What someone's family members may have done 2, 3 generations ago has little or nothing to do with what a person is or does today. Several members of my family were actually openly opposed to the Nazi regime and paid for that with their lives (my mother's uncle and his son) - that doesn't make me or any other member of my family resistance heroes.

     You have a very acute understanding of your own dilemma but tend to jump to conclusions about others. I was trying to put in context one reason why it would be less likely for Europeans to react in an ignorant manner. There is nothing racial about it. They are closer to where the history happened and had family members who lived through it. Like your family, for instance.

    So tell me exactly what was racist about my remarks, or leave the implication that you just lash out whenever the mood strikes you.

[M forever]

     You have a very acute understanding of your own dilemma but tend to jump to conclusions about others. I was trying to put in context one reason why it would be less likely for Europeans to react in an ignorant manner. There is nothing racial about it. They are closer to where the history happened and had family members who lived through it. Like your family, for instance.

    So tell me exactly what was racist about my remarks, or leave the implication that you just lash out whenever the mood strikes you.

The answer to this question is already contained in the text portion you quoted. Please read it again, this time more carefully!

amazing , the ones who  know about history, read all the books, are the ones who can;'t really understand what happened.
That takes psychology to do that, but not the kind they teach in the universities.

Well, you probably don't know what "kind of psychology" they teach at universities anyway. What really is pretty amazing and probably also allows a lot of insight of the psychological kind is how someone like you who obviously doesn't have much of an education *of any kind* constructs his own autistic reality from the little distorted bits and pieces of information he has snapped up here and there, and how you even have a justification for being that ignorant, and for disregarding more thouroughly informed viewpoints based on actual information. In your mind, not being able to read "the history books" allows you more insights than actually informing yourself, just like you think you know what is "in "the islamics'" hearts" even though you admit you don't even know more than 2 or 3 people with that kind of background. even more amazing is how someone can be so stupid that he manages to completely discredit everything he says himself...

[paulb]

I do know that it will take germany 100 yrs before a  deep realization of change in their collective unconscious.
The jews too are in desparate need of a  transformation into a  higher consciousness.
The islamic's, well that right now is a  lost cause.We can't even begin about talking of a  higher consciousness.
They will meet with destruction first.