|
| Thread: Intentions |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 05:08 PM |
|
|
|
The Hiroshima nuke intention? Einstein clearly suggested we drop one on the country side as a show of force without killing tens of thousands of people first but the US government gives us a bogus "We didn't get the memo" aka "WHOOPS, SORRY" excuse.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 05:16 PM |
|
|
|
Whats wrong when some civilians die? War isnt fun without widespread murder!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 05:20 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Apparently, that was the alternative he US considered. I guess the alternative to that, the one which I might support, was to pull out of Japan entirely and wage a purely defensive war.
Well, don't you think that, umm, the range of options you'd consider in order to solve a situation is or should be a lot more consequential in evaluating your "intentions".
I mean, if you want to kill someone no matter what, and you spend time with looking for a way more painless than the one considered, you might call that "good intentions" - but of course you'd ask for the good intentions with regard to the killing as well, wouldn't you?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 06:02 PM |
|
|
JoonasTo said:
Quote:
There's no way around civilians dying in a war
BULLsnow
Actually, most people tend to think there is an inverse proportion between advanced civilization and civillian loss of life in warfare but the opposite is true. The more technological wars get, the more civillians die. Just compare the ratios of WWI and then WW II and then compare them to Iraq (ratios not numbers) and you'll see.
As a side note, in WW 2, more civillians died in the air raids than from the atom bomb, but that is usually overlooked because they didnt die at once.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 06:24 PM |
|
|
artu said:
JoonasTo said:
Quote:
There's no way around civilians dying in a war
BULLsnow
Actually, most people tend to think there is an inverse proportion between advanced civilization and civillian loss of life in warfare but the opposite is true. The more technological wars get, the more civillians die. Just compare the ratios of WWI and then WW II and then compare them to Iraq (ratios not numbers) and you'll see.
As a side note, in WW 2, more civillians died in the air raids than from the atom bomb, but that is usually overlooked because they didnt die at once.
The iraq war and all the other middle eastern wars are bad examples.
You have to be more precise. Do you mean the invasion or the insurgency?
If you think about losses during the invasion of iraq, then it wa a pretty clean war. THe insurgency on the aother hand is not a war, its dirty conflict motivated by religious fanaticism
The current civil war in syria has probably 100.000 dead. The reason there arnt more dead is because those that wanted to flee, fled. In the WW1 and WW2, there was no way to flee. It was an all out war and people were much poorer back then, they had no means to flee.
Overall, war has become cleaner and more effective but also the means to kill people has increased. However, there hasnt been a WW since WW2.
While the means of war have increased, the
If current human civilization plunges into war and and the second dark ages, I believe your statement will be correct. I mean, there are 7 billion people around nowadays. Its statistically bound to be more casualties.
I agree with xerox on the idea that the nuke on hiroshima has saved more american lives than an invasion would have costed.
But then, the nuke, the place and the motivation from using it are not clear. It wasnt done to save lives.
This can also be proved by the fact that americans have used military personal to march over nuclear irradiated zones. They did not care about personel losses.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 06:54 PM |
|
|
|
It's not like that just in the Middle-East, as areas get more populated and weapons like bomber planes and rocket launchers become more common, civilian loss of life increases. You can think of it like this, any attacking force will try to minimize casualties on THEIR SIDE. So, the technology advances in order to achieve that, which means you will try to hit targets from a greater distance and putting minimum amount of your people in danger as possible. Drone strikes is the latest example of that, it means you wont risk a pilot's life which is expensive to train and lets you attack remote, small targets but it also means more civilians targeted "accidentally."
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 09:31 PM |
|
|
seraphim said:
But then, the nuke, the place and the motivation from using it are not clear. It wasnt done to save lives.
no, it wasn't done to save lives. it was a direct retaliation for directly attacking the u.s., when it wasn't involved previously. it was the kinda thing that says, "if you **** with us, just a little, we'll **** with you, a whole ****ing lot."
you can see how much priorities have changed since then. now, the u.s. seems to find the best way to profit off of an attack. hence, iraq instead of afghanistan, after 9/11(not to mention, the massive increase in surveillance both in the states, and across the world).
of course, 'ol bush junior could have been genuinely retarded, and attacked whoever his dad couldn't take care of before him, but i don't believe that at all.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 09:46 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:46, 22 Apr 2014.
|
JollyJoker said:
xerox said:
Apparently, that was the alternative he US considered. I guess the alternative to that, the one which I might support, was to pull out of Japan entirely and wage a purely defensive war.
Well, don't you think that, umm, the range of options you'd consider in order to solve a situation is or should be a lot more consequential in evaluating your "intentions".
I mean, if you want to kill someone no matter what, and you spend time with looking for a way more painless than the one considered, you might call that "good intentions" - but of course you'd ask for the good intentions with regard to the killing as well, wouldn't you?
The intention for the killing in this case was to end / win the war, which obviously would stop further killing.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 09:50 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
The intention for the killing in this case was to end / win the war, which obviously would stop further killing.
yeah. kinda like how they lock up killers, so that they won't kill. 
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 09:54 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:54, 22 Apr 2014.
|
we must not forget the massive imperialistic and oppressive dictatorship that was the Japanese Empire
it was a just cause to put an end to it
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 10:01 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
we must not forget the massive imperialistic and oppressive dictatorship that was the Japanese Empire
it was a just cause to put an end to it
Nah, I ont think it matters what your adversary is when you are pissed off at them.
Some of america's allies were oppressive dictatorships during the 20th century aswell, like south korea before they become a democracy.
War isnt heroic, its all about some dudes interests over another dudes interests.
Honor, patriotism and all the BS is just noise or music for the gullible.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 10:02 PM |
|
|
South Korea didn't go around invading other countries, committing crimes against humanity. It's on a whole other degree than Japan.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 10:10 PM |
|
Edited by seraphim at 22:18, 22 Apr 2014.
|
xerox said:
South Korea didn't go around invading other countries, committing crimes against humanity. It's on a whole other degree than Japan.
Thats a strawmen fallacy. The fact that South korea and Japan were oppressive regimes stands firm.
Whether or not they invaded other countries changes little whether or not they were repressive.
Saudi arabia is a repressive regime, yet all the world focuses on Iran, another repressive regime. Why is saudi arabia so much overlooked while iran and north korea are vilified beyond words found in the dictionary.
There are stonings, widespread incarcerations and what not in saudi arabia, just like in Iran or North Korea to dissidents and innocent people.
AlL I am trying to say is that whether a regime is repressive is not of importance whether it can stand or must go down. Its interests and the wealth that matters.
Saudi arabia or for that matter sunni regimes have imperial agendas. Establishing caliphates that cross over many countries is imperial agenda to me, with islamic clerics as kings or overlords.
England was pretty imperialistic in WW2 and beyond.
Imperialism or imperial agendas do indeed go against the interests of other empires of quasi empires such as the US. I do not even agree on the term imperialism.
The old idea of what an empire is does not hold wor work in the 21st century.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 10:20 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:22, 22 Apr 2014.
|
Quote:
Saudi arabia is a repressive regime, yet all the world focuses on Iran, another repressive regime. Why is saudi arabia so much overlooked while iran and north korea are vilified beyond words found in the dictionary.
I agree that this is hypocrisy and probably also not constructive (I don't believe isolating Iran will make it more free). But you've got to realize that Imperial Japan, which INVADED country after country, systematically committing atrocious crimes against humanity against millions of people is on a whole different level than when South Korea had a dictator. There are many shades of evil.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 10:32 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Quote:
Saudi arabia is a repressive regime, yet all the world focuses on Iran, another repressive regime. Why is saudi arabia so much overlooked while iran and north korea are vilified beyond words found in the dictionary.
I agree that this is hypocrisy and probably also not constructive (I don't believe isolating Iran will make it more free). But you've got to realize that Imperial Japan, which INVADED country after country, systematically committing atrocious crimes against humanity against millions of people is on a whole different level than when South Korea had a dictator. There are many shades of evil.
But you seem to think that because they invaded other countries, they had to be put down? Not really. They were a threat to US pacific interests.
If they had agreed to hand down all the islands they captured to the US, they wouldnt have been nuked at all.
It matters little how evil or how many other countries you invade as long as you dont piss off others with bigger guns.
Please justify to me how nobody in japan got convicted of the crimes or the experiments they did on innocent chinese civilians?
The US even invested heavily in Japan. Makes little sense to aid your former arch rival, right?
Its just politics. Its like in history, when you see why wars happened, 99% of the time it was because prince spoiled brat or king "I own you" was unhappy and wanted more.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2014 11:09 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:25, 22 Apr 2014.
|
Of course, at the core of it, it's all realpolitik. I do enough real life politics myself to know just how much realism triumphs idealism. That doesn't mean you can't add moral dimensions to realpolitik. Obviously, the US didn't attack Iraq to be good guy uncle Sam but I still support the war on moral grounds.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2014 07:42 AM |
|
|
Right. So the US invaded Iraq.
Does that mean, it's cool when the Iraq - whatever has been left at a certain point - does threaten the US with detonating an atomic bomb in a US city, if they don't withdraw immediately? And if they didn't, they nuke Detroit, and if they don't withdraw then they nuke Houston?
All with the good intentions of ending the war, forcing the aggressor out and end the senseless killing?
Obviously, "good intentions" have nothing AT ALL to do with the decision to nuke two cities with civilians. It may be called pragmatic, it may be called utilitarian - but it IS BRUTE FORCE.
As has been city bombing on all and every side of any war.
Oftentimes, these things are called "having to pick the smaller evil". Trying to pick "the smaller evil" cannot be considered as "having good intentions"; instead I would call it the backbone of pragmatism, one reason being, that oftentimes it's not even possible to determine what is actually "smaller", when it comes to "evil".
However, in the case of the 1945 nukes, there clearly IS a better way, in terms of intentions, and that would have been a demonstration first, on a target that wouldn't have cost that many lives, if any, and that's nuking a demonstration target - say the Fujiyama.
Destroying cities for demonstration purpose can, under no circumstances, be called "good intentions": it's taking the POPULATION hostage. It's like shooting every tenth civilian, so that the rest is handing over the spy. And what's more - if the government in question would have been really that evil, they wouldn't have surrendered - why should they? Just continue with a guerilla war.
It's all relative, for God's sake. The settlers in the Americas took the land by force - after all, people were living there. Japan, occupying part of China is in no way different. It's what has been called IMPERIALISM: getting wealth out of the natural riches of "undercivilized" foreign countries, letting the indigenes do the heavy work, considering them "inferior". In many ways the two WWs are the wars incited by those that felt cheated in the process.
Generally, looking for "good intentions" anywhere, when it comes to politics, is a little far-fetched.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2014 02:52 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Of course, at the core of it, it's all realpolitik. I do enough real life politics myself to know just how much realism triumphs idealism.
though, the people who claim to be realists seem to actually be the idealists. from what I see, "realists" are often people who try to bend the world to their idea. if the world doesn't correspond to their ideal, they change it, if they have the power (like USA with their wars) otherwise they convince themselves with some bullsnow illogical theory, and then you wonder why everyone is screwed, when we try to run the world with rules that actually contradict reality, like in economy.
in another hand, many so called idealists, are often people who observe the way the world works, and actually try to model their ideas in accordance to it.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2014 03:40 PM |
|
|
|
The world evolved and so did evil. Evil in today's world often wears a mask of goodness and plays god rather than straight up evil ; they do good as well as evil. Intentions of individuals are worth investigating, but governments? Please...
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 23, 2014 04:47 PM |
|
|
kayna said:
The world evolved and so did evil. Evil in today's world often wears a mask of goodness and plays god rather than straight up evil ; they do good as well as evil. Intentions of individuals are worth investigating, but governments? Please...
This sounds childish. Evil hasnt evolved, it has always been a part of human psyche.
Disregard of your fellow humans has always played a big role in the past. Its not worse now, in fact its better.
Sending a horde of axe wielding barbarians to behead and rape everyone in a country only happens in africa, india, south america and the middle east now.
|
| |
|
|
