|
|
3 May 2005, 16:36
|
#101
|
Godfather
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 5,185
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantoz
I would claim the very opposite. The fact that I do have a sence of humour make me able to spot how very unfunny your post was.
Glad to clear up that misunderstanding for you.
|
it wasnt my post i was referring to
i have not attempted to make "a funny" in this thread
you did
hence
Mr Sadface.
__________________
Forum Administrator
Mail : [email protected] // IRC : #forums
__________________
It's not personal, it's just business.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 16:52
|
#102
|
Godfather
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 5,185
|
Re: Enola Gay
except that i get to ......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantoz
-- INSULT
** RETORT
-- COUNTER-RETORT
** QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
|
<ban user here>
__________________
Forum Administrator
Mail : [email protected] // IRC : #forums
__________________
It's not personal, it's just business.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 16:57
|
#103
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
In JJ's spare time he also plays a super-hero named Francesco.
He's pretty gay.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 17:01
|
#104
|
Godfather
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 5,185
|
Re: Enola Gay
Your search - piscopihile - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
__________________
Forum Administrator
Mail : [email protected] // IRC : #forums
__________________
It's not personal, it's just business.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 17:04
|
#105
|
Godfather
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 5,185
|
Re: Enola Gay
i am no closer to knowing what your talking about
In other news : the university have just shut down various ports because something on my pc tried to connec to too many ips at once...
__________________
Forum Administrator
Mail : [email protected] // IRC : #forums
__________________
It's not personal, it's just business.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 17:10
|
#106
|
Godfather
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 5,185
|
Re: Enola Gay
ah
your too clever for me :-(((
__________________
Forum Administrator
Mail : [email protected] // IRC : #forums
__________________
It's not personal, it's just business.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 17:12
|
#107
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
More like a-fish-onado am I right?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 17:21
|
#108
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
More like a-fish-onado am I right?
|
i want to hurt you for this. but in a good way
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 17:37
|
#109
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantoz
Hahahah.
Google has it's faults sometimes....
|
?
Edit: Oh wait I see what you mean. Seems like even when I think I'm being original on the internet I've already been well beaten to the punch
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 17:52
|
#110
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
Originality is for people who still think stealing is wrong
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 17:55
|
#111
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,290
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
do not confuse our pride in doing what we did, with pride in what was done
|
then why all these attempts to defend what happened to dresden, like that ninja_spammer says that you need to burn down the whole city center to destroy a railway station.
i see no way to defend attacks on civilians by todays standards. if it was simple retaliation, then fine with me, it was 60 years ago, but people shouldn't attempt to invent some military reasons when there were none.
__________________
im not tolerant, i just dont care.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 17:57
|
#112
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Enola Gay
This thread should have more Gay and less Enola.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 18:17
|
#113
|
Retired VGN
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In a country without a proper word for "sane"
Posts: 467
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Originality is for people who still think stealing is wrong
|
But thinking stealing is wrong isn't very original
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 18:24
|
#114
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakoff
There is absolutely no instance in which Bombing civillians can be justified. Be it the British Boming of Dresden, the Atomic attacks on Japan or the bombing of embassies in Belgrade. There is no justification.
|
You make it sound like the civilians were innocent. You do realise that these were the people who voted in the Nazis and made the war possible, yes? If bombing these people was going to save the lives of Brits and Americans who coincidentally hadnt voted for Hitler and werent actively supporting him, there is no question that it was the correct action to take. At some point you have to decide whether or not people are actually responsible for their actions.
From what I know, Nagasaki is a bit iffy, but Hiroshima was definitely justified. I don't really know enough about Dresden to comment, but if it helped end the war quicker and saved the lives of Allied troops, then it was justified too.
Last edited by Nodrog; 3 May 2005 at 18:30.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 18:42
|
#115
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Enola Gay
Your argument rests on three suppositions; that the entire city of Dresden voted en-masse for Hitler twelve years before the bombings, (Which, knowing the history of Dresden and Saxony, I find totally unlikely; I would be surprised if the Nazis ever had more than 40% of the vote here, and in any case, Hitler never recieved a majority of the national vote .), that the population of Saxony was magically aware that Hitler was going to launch the second world war six years in advance, and supported this, and, even then, regardless of their initial voting behaviour, that they, or the majority of them, were all die-hard Nazis in 1945.
All of which are totally and utterly wrong.
Last edited by Marilyn Manson; 3 May 2005 at 18:48.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 18:47
|
#116
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukePaul
But thinking stealing is wrong isn't very original
|
It's about being right in that case, not original.
For an individualist nod you have some pretty crazy collectivist ideas.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 18:50
|
#117
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Enola Gay
In fact, by Nod's reasoning, if Bush launched a war against Canada tommorow, then it would be perfectly within Canada's rights to massacre the entire population of New York if this was expeditious.
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 23:52
|
#118
|
Ball
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,410
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
For an individualist nod you have some pretty crazy collectivist ideas.
|
States are people too?
|
|
|
3 May 2005, 23:54
|
#119
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
In fact, by Nod's reasoning, if Bush launched a war against Canada tommorow, then it would be perfectly within Canada's rights to massacre the entire population of New York if this was expeditious.
|
GO FOR THE REDNECK STATES FIRST!
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
4 May 2005, 00:22
|
#120
|
Freedom Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Doing evil deeds in the name of freedom
Posts: 680
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_trax
then why all these attempts to defend what happened to dresden, like that ninja_spammer says that you need to burn down the whole city center to destroy a railway station.
i see no way to defend attacks on civilians by todays standards. if it was simple retaliation, then fine with me, it was 60 years ago, but people shouldn't attempt to invent some military reasons when there were none.
|
God forbid we let the actual facts get in the way of a good bashing and moaning session, eh.
Do some ****ing historical research into all sides of the event you dickhead.
I'm fed up seeing you whine about Dresden without bothering to actually go look for information about what happened, why it happened,how it was justified at the time or what the military benefits were.
__________________
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 15:43
|
#121
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
In fact, by Nod's reasoning, if Bush launched a war against Canada tommorow, then it would be perfectly within Canada's rights to massacre the entire population of New York if this was expeditious.
|
If Canada believed that would help end the war and save Canadian lives, then not only is it 'perfectly within their rights', it is an action they should take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
Your argument rests on three suppositions; that the entire city of Dresden voted en-masse for Hitler twelve years before the bombings, (Which, knowing the history of Dresden and Saxony, I find totally unlikely; I would be surprised if the Nazis ever had more than 40% of the vote here, and in any case, Hitler never recieved a majority of the national vote .), that the population of Saxony was magically aware that Hitler was going to launch the second world war six years in advance, and supported this, and, even then, regardless of their initial voting behaviour, that they, or the majority of them, were all die-hard Nazis in 1945.
|
None of these are especially relevant - in this context, living in the country is support enough. When your country is quite wrongfully murdering thousands of people, you should be aware that it is going to be attacked by those it is aggressing. If you dont want to get out of the way, that is your problem.
Last edited by Nodrog; 5 May 2005 at 15:51.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 15:47
|
#122
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
For an individualist nod you have some pretty crazy collectivist ideas.
|
You're the one suggesting that people should sacrifice their lives in order to protect the enemy, not me.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 15:52
|
#123
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
I'm just not big into the killing of innocent people. That's me though, I'm silly like that.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 15:54
|
#124
|
Godfather
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 5,185
|
Re: Enola Gay
morality during war lol
__________________
Forum Administrator
Mail : [email protected] // IRC : #forums
__________________
It's not personal, it's just business.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 15:58
|
#125
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
If you find your personal morality impractical during times of extremes perhaps you should revise your moral attitudes.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:03
|
#126
|
Evul Critter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: York
Posts: 255
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
You make it sound like the civilians were innocent. You do realise that these were the people who voted in the Nazis and made the war possible, yes? If bombing these people was going to save the lives of Brits and Americans who coincidentally hadnt voted for Hitler and werent actively supporting him, there is no question that it was the correct action to take. At some point you have to decide whether or not people are actually responsible for their actions.
From what I know, Nagasaki is a bit iffy, but Hiroshima was definitely justified. I don't really know enough about Dresden to comment, but if it helped end the war quicker and saved the lives of Allied troops, then it was justified too.
|
The Nazi's never got majority support from the Germans. I'd suggest that the bombing of Dresden was not just morally wrong, it also didn't have the effect that was wanted. It didn't stop the Death of one single American or British person, at all. It didn't stop people from supporting Hitler either, they were already disollusioned by that point. The people who voted for Hitler weren't given the full details of what Hitler was going to do. Blair promised not to introduce top-up fee's and he did, does that make me guilty of introducing top-up fees?
Many of those who died in Dresden were German people fleeing the Red Army who had taken Poland. Many of these didn't vote for Hitler, they were just part of the Polish authoritarian regime prior to the War. So there were many innocents if you believe that Hitler supporters are guilty. And more importantly, it didn't save a single British life, the red army took Dresden i believe.
The things you say about Hiroshima are true, they obviously saved the lives of Allies troops. I just disagree that the targetting of civillians that didn't vote in their emporer or for war to save the lives of troops who are there to fight, an perhaps die for their country. Obviously this is my opinion and it depends on what you think personally. Nagasaki was clearly wrong.
Oh and if morality isn't valid during war, then why was the Holocaust wrong? Why is the killing of prisoners wrong? We demonise hitler and the SS for their lack of Morals..... But its different if we do immoral things during war....? Of course Morality is important.
__________________
Critters own....
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:10
|
#127
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I'm just not big into the killing of innocent people. That's me though, I'm silly like that.
|
As I said, I wouldnt class them as entirely 'innocent'. Allowing someone evil to use you as a hostage in order to protect themselves against attack is pretty despicable. There are plenty of smaller scale examples where killing civilians would be perfectly acceptable, such as the stereotype "what do you do if someone is shooting at you but is using a human shield to stop you firing back" scenario. In most cases like this, I would say the responsibility for the deaths lies primarily with the aggressor, not with the person who is protecting himself.
Last edited by Nodrog; 5 May 2005 at 16:15.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:14
|
#128
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakoff
The Nazi's never got majority support from the Germans. I'd suggest that the bombing of Dresden was not just morally wrong, it also didn't have the effect that was wanted. It didn't stop the Death of one single American or British person, at all. It didn't stop people from supporting Hitler either, they were already disollusioned by that point. The people who voted for Hitler weren't given the full details of what Hitler was going to do. Blair promised not to introduce top-up fee's and he did, does that make me guilty of introducing top-up fees?
|
As I said, I dont know the details of Dresden. If there wasnt good reason to believe that the bombing would help end the war and save Allied lives, then I would agree it was morally wrong. Your example about top-up fees is invalid; making students pay more money for their education may not warrant a revolution against an elected government, but trying to conquer the world probably does. You dont just vote one day and then become absolved of responsibility for the next 4 years.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:19
|
#129
|
cynic
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bishop Auckland Co. Durham
Posts: 8,809
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakoff
Oh and if morality isn't valid during war, then why was the Holocaust wrong?
|
perhaps because there is a difference between deliberately rounding up anyone you decide is 'undesirable' and killing them out of hand in an attempt to wipe them out as opposed to completely wiping out an enemy city with (what you believe to be) valid reasons
__________________
lazy
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:20
|
#130
|
Evul Critter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: York
Posts: 255
|
Re: Enola Gay
Why invading Poland?
Poland was a very unpleasant regime. Just because Britain supported Poland doesn't mean they were a nice democratic, civil nation. Just before they were invaded they were killing people in Auschwitz and invading Lithuania. They also killed many liths in some horrbly nasty ways in vilnius etc. Supporting the Polish was a bit of a joke after the British helped Czechoslovakia get invaded. Czechoslovakia being a democratic nation that wasn't particularly nasty to anyone.
I do see your point, that if they want to be absolved of guilt they should have started a revolution. What about the children!! the poor Children!!!
__________________
Critters own....
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:23
|
#131
|
Godfather
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 5,185
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
The things you say about Hiroshima are true, they obviously saved the lives of Allies troops. I just disagree that the targetting of civillians that didn't vote in their emporer or for war to save the lives of troops who are there to fight, an perhaps die for their country. Obviously this is my opinion and it depends on what you think personally. Nagasaki was clearly wrong.
Oh and if morality isn't valid during war, then why was the Holocaust wrong? Why is the killing of prisoners wrong? We demonise hitler and the SS for their lack of Morals..... But its different if we do immoral things during war....? Of course Morality is important.
|
First of all....you dont vote in an emperor....
If you had an understanding of Japanese culture youd realise that the Emperor was basically a living God. He was the absolute power within Japanese culture and society. His military commanders were, however, even worse than he was when it came to the idea of surrendering and as has bene noted before. Even AFTER 2 atomic bombs had been dropped it took the Emperors personal intervention to call for an end to hostilities and unconditional surrender of Japanese forces. Before that most of the military wanted to continue until every japanese man was dead; even if this meant the destuction of the Japanese homeland.
Now for holocaust. and POW's
War is governed by rules and ethics. War is targetting people who are actively engaged in warfare whether it be arms production or fighting on the front line.
As soon as you put down your gun your considered a non combattant and are afforded the same rights as any other citizen under law (both international and domestic)
This is clearly stated in every 'rules of engagement' document ever written. In addition during times of War: when targetting combatants or proponents of the war effort 'collateral' damage will of course be incurred. During WW2 precision bombing was not even heard of. To get a factory involved dropping a shit load of bombs in the general area hopefully hitting the target. this meant huge amounts of collateral damage. (read: civilian death)
As both Germany and Britain had mobilsed its entire workforce to contribute to the war effort in nearly all major cities the bombing of these cities can be 'justified' along those pretexts.
A POW is no longer a combatant and as such cannot simply be killed because he fought against you. He is no longer a threat and therefore no longer part of the War effort. Anything which IS part of the war effort can be killed/destroyed etc. Presuming it doesnt surrender first or whatnot.
As for the Holocaust....if you can defend the holocaust then good luck. Personally i think the 'final solution' to destroy an entire race based on their religion and using War as a 'reason' to do so is morally and ethically revolting. How you can even suggest its acceptable during war im not sure but it totally invalidates any previous 'arguement' youve made.
__________________
Forum Administrator
Mail : [email protected] // IRC : #forums
__________________
It's not personal, it's just business.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:23
|
#132
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
As I said, I wouldnt class them as entirely 'innocent'. Allowing someone evil to use you as a hostage in order to protect themselves against attack is pretty despicable. There are plenty of smaller scale examples where killing civilians would be perfectly acceptable, such as the stereotype "what do you do if someone is shooting at you but is using a human shield to stop you firing back" scenario. In most cases like this, I would say the responsibility for the deaths lies primarily with the aggressor, not with the person who is protecting himself.
|
It's a rather different situation though. I would agree that the primary moral, obviously not causal, responsibility lies with the aggressor government, but a large degree of responsibility for minimising potential innocent casualties (and I'd hope we could agree on at least all children being "innocent") remains regardless. In most of these situations that arise you'll find that if proper action had been taken beforehand the problematic scenario would never have arisen but that's a fairly useless "o look at me i was rite about the end of the world" point.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:25
|
#133
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner_0
perhaps because there is a difference between deliberately rounding up anyone you decide is 'undesirable' and killing them out of hand in an attempt to wipe them out as opposed to completely wiping out an enemy city with (what you believe to be) valid reasons
|
In fairness Hitler gave his reasons and he probably found them pretty valid
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:27
|
#134
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakoff
Why invading Poland?
|
I edited it before you replied to make the point stronger
Quote:
I do see your point, that if they want to be absolved of guilt they should have started a revolution. What about the children!! the poor Children!!!
|
It's not even about starting a revolution, that was just an example. A revolution is an obviously dangerous task and I dont think people could be blamed for avoiding something so risky. Simply leaving the country would have been enough. As I said, these civilians must surely have known that Germany was going to be attacked after what it did. If they disagreed with the morality of their government's actions and sympathised with those being aggressed against, then surely they would not want to be in a situation where the victims are scared to retaliate for fear of killing them. If Britain were to start murdering foreigners in an attempt to perform a military conquest of Europe, then I wouldnt blame those being attacked for nuking London in self-defence, and I would certainly do my best to avoid being here when it happened.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:27
|
#135
|
Godfather
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 5,185
|
Re: Enola Gay
i guess your viewpoint depends on what 'stance' you take regarding the ethics of war whether it be pacifist, realist or the 'middle ground' of just war theory (aka Michael Walzer)
__________________
Forum Administrator
Mail : [email protected] // IRC : #forums
__________________
It's not personal, it's just business.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:31
|
#136
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
It's a rather different situation though. I would agree that the primary moral, obviously not causal, responsibility lies with the aggressor government, but a large degree of responsibility for minimising potential innocent casualties (and I'd hope we could agree on at least all children being "innocent") remains regardless. In most of these situations that arise you'll find that if proper action had been taken beforehand the problematic scenario would never have arisen but that's a fairly useless "o look at me i was rite about the end of the world" point.
|
It's a shame that innocent children would be killed, but the responsibility for their deaths would lie primarily with the invading country, not the one that was protecting itself. While I agree that steps should be taken to avoid killing innocent people, this should not be prioritised over protecting those on 'your side'. I'm not suggesting that Germans should have been killed purely out of spite or to 'teach them a lesson', rather that their deaths would be justified if it helped to prevent deaths in the victimised country(s).
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:40
|
#137
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
Personally I wouldn't view the death of a German child any differently to that of a British child. Both are equally innocent and neither deserve to die. It is a strange line you are trying to walk. Systematically nuking every large city in germany would definitely save lives on "your side" however I'd hope you wouldn't view this as in any way the right approach to take. This appears to be one of those cases that comes down to very fine details. Yes the railways at dresden were a perfectly valid military target but the way in which they were hit was not morally justified. To take a more extreme example if they'd hit dresden with a hypothetical continent-destroying device I think we'd both find this an immoral attack due to the appalling collateral damage.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 16:57
|
#138
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Personally I wouldn't view the death of a German child any differently to that of a British child.
|
I wouldnt view the life of Peter as being more important than the life of Paul, but this doesnt alter the fact Peter has the right to kill Paul if self-defence necessitates it.
Quote:
Systematically nuking every large city in germany would definitely save lives on "your side" however I'd hope you wouldn't view this as in any way the right approach to take.
|
Except I would, assuming that this strategy would work. This is essentially what happened in Japan after all.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 17:08
|
#139
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JammyJim
i guess your viewpoint depends on what 'stance' you take regarding the ethics of war whether it be pacifist, realist or the 'middle ground' of just war theory (aka Michael Walzer)
|
I would say this is more basic than the ethics of war, since it seems to revolve around where the boundary should be drawn around a person's right to defend himself (ie "what actions would an individual be absolutely prohibited from taking, even if his life depended on it?"). I would claim that no such boundary exists - that you can never reach a point where it is possible to rightfully tell someone not to do X, even if X is likely to save his life. There may be actions that an individual would not willingly be prepared to perform for whatever reason, but this would be their own decision, and not one that could correctly be made on their behalf. Innocents can never be condemned for wanting to live, regardless of the consequences.
I would also claim that this scaled up unchanged to countries, since a proper government should be acting on behalf of the people and is ultimately responsible to them, rather than to citizens of another state. Government X simply does not have the right to sacrifice its people's lives in order to protect those who live in attacking country Y.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 17:17
|
#140
|
cynic
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bishop Auckland Co. Durham
Posts: 8,809
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
In fairness Hitler gave his reasons and he probably found them pretty valid
|
what reasons did hitler give? to look back, and be able to read the RAF documents, and be able to discuss the bombing within the context of war, the reasons remain valid and were within the stated goals of the war effort. However, i defy ANYONE rational to make a case for the defence of hitlers actions.
EDIT: to put it another way, i have given what i believe to be valid reasons for a 'logans run' style cull of the over 60's, it doesnt mean that they are valid though, or that anyone would agree with me on them
__________________
lazy
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 17:20
|
#141
|
Evul Critter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: York
Posts: 255
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JammyJim
First of all....you dont vote in an emperor....
If you had an understanding of Japanese culture youd realise that the Emperor was basically a living God. He was the absolute power within Japanese culture and society. His military commanders were, however, even worse than he was when it came to the idea of surrendering and as has bene noted before. Even AFTER 2 atomic bombs had been dropped it took the Emperors personal intervention to call for an end to hostilities and unconditional surrender of Japanese forces. Before that most of the military wanted to continue until every japanese man was dead; even if this meant the destuction of the Japanese homeland.
|
you misunderstand what i say. i know they don;t vote for their emporer. I just should have worded it better!
i didn't suggest the holocaust was right. I was saying that to say there is no morality in war is wrong. Rules of engagement are based on basic rules of morality. That we don't kill people who don't bear arms, that war is for the battlefield and for the people fighting. The fact that there are things in war more horrific that the killing of soldiers shows that there is a certain level of morality, even if this is lessened by the fact that the people accept that soldiers should kill in war.
Yes i agree that clinical wars are unreachable, just as i think 'bad' things in war will always happen. - abuse of prisoners, killing of prisoners, rape of women and children etcetc. This happens because you change the rules for the soldiers, they are allowed to kill so they do, to some extent, have psychopathic tendencies because of this. We change their understanding of what is right and wrong.
The point is that as civil people, if we accept that war is inevitable, there are certain ways the this war should be carried out. Hence the Geneva convention etc. We accept a lapse in morals but not the destruction of morality completely, its just at a different level. This is why i believe the killing of soldiers on both sides is ok, but the targetting of Civillians directly is wrong.
Nodrog - thats mean
__________________
Critters own....
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 17:24
|
#142
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner_0
what reasons did hitler give? to look back, and be able to read the RAF documents, and be able to discuss the bombing within the context of war, the reasons remain valid and were within the stated goals of the war effort. However, i defy ANYONE rational to make a case for the defence of hitlers actions.
|
Humanity remains in competition with its environment, and it is entirely plausable that at some point in the future we will come under attack from an exterior sentient species. Therefore, to increase the likelihood of the survival of our species, we should attempt to weed out characteristics (and therefore heritages) that are deemed unhelpful to the cause.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 17:30
|
#143
|
Evul Critter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: York
Posts: 255
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner_0
what reasons did hitler give? to look back, and be able to read the RAF documents, and be able to discuss the bombing within the context of war, the reasons remain valid and were within the stated goals of the war effort.
|
.
The war could have been over far sooner had bomber Harris decided to continue the campaign against German oil and petrol. The Americans thought the bombing was wrong and undermined their campaigns of bombing military/factory targets, although obviously this changed with their move to use Nuclear weapons in Japan.
So Bomber haris wasn't justified to make the descision at all. If even went against the recognised advice for the bombing of cities because Dresden was a low level target, devoid of any military significance. i fail to see how they are valid to the war effort at all.
__________________
Critters own....
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 18:19
|
#144
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakoff
If even went against the recognised advice for the bombing of cities because Dresden was a low level target, devoid of any military significance.
|
That's just false.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 18:35
|
#145
|
Evul Critter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: York
Posts: 255
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
That's just false.
|
It came out in the documents 10years ago. There were classifications of cities, presented on the value of the target. Anyhow targets of military significance like The Ruhr area and Hamburg were at the top of the list, there were targets that were high significance and low risk which were even higher etc.
Dresden was a low risk, low advantage target. There simply wasn't anything worthwhile there to bomb. From what i remember it was said that Dresden only had rail and road links. It doesn't have significant industry and is low on the list because its a historic city. There weren't any big military factories there on anything worthy, most of those were in the Ruhr or outside Germany. If it was so important, why was it not bombed once before 1945, just as the Red army were getting there.
Bomber Harris decided to Hit Dresden because it was an easy target. It also went with his mass bombing plans, he could lower the morale of the German people with little risk to his Bomber crews. He did say that he was trying to support the Eastern Front and said that it was a major communication link for the German Army. Churchill thought it was unjustified and wrong too.
I'd also suggest that if it was a major target for bombs, why the hell did they fire bomb Dresden too? Especially when they knew there was civillians at the target.
you can read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II
__________________
Critters own....
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 18:41
|
#146
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakoff
Supporting the Polish was a bit of a joke after the British helped Czechoslovakia get invaded. Czechoslovakia being a democratic nation that wasn't particularly nasty to anyone.
|
'helped'
?
__________________
hi
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 18:42
|
#147
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
I wouldnt view the life of Peter as being more important than the life of Paul, but this doesnt alter the fact Peter has the right to kill Paul if self-defence necessitates it.
|
I'd argue that self-defence did not necessitate the extent of the bombing.
Quote:
Except I would, assuming that this strategy would work. This is essentially what happened in Japan after all.
|
Not really. Hiroshima was a demonstration of power, ie what could be done, Nagasaki was a demonstration that this could be done again*. If, for example they'd nuked every city in Japan at the same moment that would have been a completely immoral decision. Unnecessary death should never be accepted as part of self-defence.
*I have a vague idea that they actually didn't have a lot of useful fissile material left after nagasaki but I think the essential point holds up regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rr
what reasons did hitler give? to look back, and be able to read the RAF documents, and be able to discuss the bombing within the context of war, the reasons remain valid and were within the stated goals of the war effort. However, i defy ANYONE rational to make a case for the defence of hitlers actions.
EDIT: to put it another way, i have given what i believe to be valid reasons for a 'logans run' style cull of the over 60's, it doesnt mean that they are valid though, or that anyone would agree with me on them
|
I think what we're arguing is that the reasons for precise actions taken were not valid. Nobody's debating the "win the war" approach. However the "win the war by slaughtering people indiscriminately" approach is certainly a fairly contentious one. Obviously the difference between the holocaust and the dresden bombings is on a scale best measured in astronomical units but there are underlying similarities.
If you want to see defences of Hitler's actions you should probably visit stormfront
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 18:45
|
#148
|
cynic
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bishop Auckland Co. Durham
Posts: 8,809
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakoff
.
The war could have been over far sooner had bomber Harris decided to continue the campaign against German oil and petrol. The Americans thought the bombing was wrong and undermined their campaigns of bombing military/factory targets, although obviously this changed with their move to use Nuclear weapons in Japan.
So Bomber haris wasn't justified to make the descision at all. If even went against the recognised advice for the bombing of cities because Dresden was a low level target, devoid of any military significance. i fail to see how they are valid to the war effort at all.
|
so, did you read the link i posted in my reply at all???
__________________
lazy
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 18:46
|
#149
|
Evul Critter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: York
Posts: 255
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
'helped'
?
|
by supporting the Munich agreement and allowing Germany to peacefully take the 'Sudatenlands' they helped Germany gain all of Czechoslovakia's defensive positions. If they hadn't done this it is possible Czechoslovakia could have defeated the German Army. Even if it did, they basically stopped Czechslovakia from making a stand against Germany.
__________________
Critters own....
|
|
|
5 May 2005, 18:52
|
#150
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakoff
Churchill thought it was unjustified and wrong too.
|
to quote your opwn source:
"Churchill, who approved of the targeting of Dresden and supported the bombing prior to the event"
now
A WARNING
you are posting a lot of ill thought out nonsense about a topic that many people here know more than you.
it is also a very emotive topic and one people feel pasionately about.
posting falsehoods and wrong factual information is very likely to get your head bitten off
If i were you i would stop now.
consider yourself warned.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:49.
| |