The morality of bombing civilians The morality of bombing civilians - Page 4

starting strength gym
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 103

Thread: The morality of bombing civilians

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    899

    Default

    • wichita falls texas march seminar date
    • woodmere new york april seminar date
    Quote Originally Posted by coldfire View Post
    This is not a legitimate reason. Voting for someone is not equivalent to approving all of his future actions.
    Some will and some won't, but they are impossible to separate one from the other. Even when they object, but go along with an immoral leader, they are tacitly supporting the regime. If they can leave, then they should. If they cannot leave they are stuck under the heel of a dictator who will threaten them with death and worse if they don't cooperate - what's worse: to be killed by foreign bombs from a free country, or to be murdered by the dictatorship for attempting to live freely ? They should rise up and overthrow the dictatorship and the incentive given by enemy bombing might well be the push they require to do so.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chicago Burbs, IL
    Posts
    800

    Default

    Some Context:

    More than twice as many civilians died in world war 2 as military.
    Germany and Japan lost over twice as many military as civilians.
    The axis powers killed more people than the allies.

    All WW2 deaths by country
    25M Soviet Union (military deaths 10.7M)
    20M China (military deaths 4M)
    7.4M Germany *** (military deaths 5.5M)
    6.0M Poland
    4M Dutch East Indies
    3.1M Japan *** (military deaths 2.1M)
    2.2M India
    2.2M French Indochina
    1.7M Yugoslavia
    807k Greece
    600k France
    557k Phillippines
    514k Italy ***
    500k Romania ***
    533k Korea
    464k Hungary
    450k United Kingdom
    419k United States

    *** axis for at least part of the war

    So all axis deaths combined come in third behind China, by a wide margin.

    Pearl Harbor was attacked without a declaration of war, Axis aggression across the planet was unchecked and world domination was likely. The Axis powers military were actively killing civilians at unprecidented rates.

    The only way to make the axis stop their massive slaughter of civilians, and world conquest, was the use of force.

    Force was used. They stopped when we stopped them.

    Japan killed 16M civilians in China alone. Probably another 4M across the rest of Asia, against a loss of 1M civilians in Japan.

    Odd to argue "victumhood" under the circumstances.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    899

    Default

    Good numbers. They numerically underscore my previous assertion that those who live under dictatorships are often killed anyway. They are not free and therefore they have no life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. Those that are happy with and support these regimes are the bad guys. It's hard to take away someone's individual rights if they don't have any. Living isn't living if a people are constantly and rationally in fear of what their Government will do to them, their families and friends.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CommanderFun View Post
    Well, unless the hypothetical elected official ran on a platform of "I am going to declare war on everyone" or something. But even then, you've got the minority (possibly even a majority if you take into account nonvoters) who didn't vote for this person. But the truth is, "war is hell". It's a cliched quote, but it's true. I look at war like I look at more personal uses of violence. If you're concerned with a fight being "clean", you shouldn't be fighting. If you're not prepared to pull the trigger, you shouldn't draw the gun. Trying to make war "tolerable" is what leads to wars that stretch on forever. Ideally, both winner and loser get taxed to such a point that they become willing to settle the disagreement that led to war in the first place at the peacemaking table. I tend to reference Star Trek too much, but the original series episode "A Taste of Armageddon" is an excellent example.
    I agree, and this alone is a good enough reason, but the rest of FatButWeak's list are not.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FatButWeak View Post
    Totally legit to bomb civilians:

    1) war is hell, hell isnt nice
    2) civilians are the military's source of funding, fighters, food and fuel. A disabled/crippled civilian force cannot fund feed fuel and staff a military
    3) the civilians voted in or otherwise tacitly supported the politicians who created the war conditions
    4) many of the civillians want or approve of the desires/ends/aims of the war being fought
    5) war is hell
    Could you explain how infants and children tacitly supported the politicians?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    La Jolla California
    Posts
    1,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CommanderFun View Post
    Well, unless the hypothetical elected official ran on a platform of "I am going to declare war on everyone" or something. But even then, you've got the minority (possibly even a majority if you take into account nonvoters) who didn't vote for this person. But the truth is, "war is hell". It's a cliched quote, but it's true. I look at war like I look at more personal uses of violence. If you're concerned with a fight being "clean", you shouldn't be fighting. If you're not prepared to pull the trigger, you shouldn't draw the gun. Trying to make war "tolerable" is what leads to wars that stretch on forever. Ideally, both winner and loser get taxed to such a point that they become willing to settle the disagreement that led to war in the first place at the peacemaking table. I tend to reference Star Trek too much, but the original series episode "A Taste of Armageddon" is an excellent example.
    Understanding this incentivizes peace in the first place, much less putting an early end to the conflict. Id rather see no war.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    La Jolla California
    Posts
    1,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Chapman View Post
    Could you explain how infants and children tacitly supported the politicians?
    No. Life is messy. war is messier. If we wait until there is 100% unanimous agreement we will never get anywhere. PArents should think of their children when supporting politicians.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Chapman View Post
    Could you explain how infants and children tacitly supported the politicians?
    Because the parents are responsible for the children and the parents tacitly support the Government.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Chapman View Post
    Could you explain how infants and children tacitly supported the politicians?
    In-group mentality and tribal instincts are an inherent trait in all primates beginning at or before birth.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chicago Burbs, IL
    Posts
    800

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    "Children, we love them, but they're here to replace us." - Jerry Seinfield

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •