|
World War II nations opposing the United States required destruction and rebirth, and Patton was correct to want to place Stalin's head on a pike for Poland.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Is it moral to commit acts of extreme violence in the sincere belief doing so prevents a greater malevolent force from commiting acts of extreme violence? yes next question
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:yes next question ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Yeah, pretty much. So would you endorse a scorched earth policy against civilian populations in the Middle East in order to completely annihilate ISIS?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The internment of Japanese and brutal handling of suspected partisans by the Germans were absolutely things done with the intention of winning the war But this is kind of shifting the goalpost isn't it? You were talking about if mass murder of Soviet civilians ala generalplan ost had the Germans won being justifable, or whether something like the Bataan death march was justifiable. Those are clear nos. Anti-partisan warfare is more of a grey area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So would you endorse a scorched earth policy against civilian populations in the Middle East in order to completely annihilate ISIS? I see what you're doing here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So would you endorse a scorched earth policy against civilian populations in the Middle East in order to completely annihilate ISIS? ISIS isnt demoralized by civilian casualties so that seems like a really bad plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Typo posted:But this is kind of shifting the goalpost isn't it? I meant antipartisan stuff in the first place, sorry But the more important point is that the post I quoted unlike other posters ITT didn't even say horrible stuff is justified "to prevent more horrible stuff" It said it's justified "to win" From what you've posted you're literally arguing might makes right
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
ISIS is equal to the central American rebels Reagan dispatched so thoroughly. ISIS doesn't require scorched earth to destroy as they are simple creatures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I see what you're doing here. As I said, there are cases where I would say yes, cases where I would say no. I don't think its a clean "always yes" answer. For example, I am perfectly morally comfortable with Sherman's march through Atlanta because I saw the malevolence the Confederacy represented as needing to be completely subdued. At the same time, if you asked if I was comfortable with us doing the same thing in the middle east I would strongly say no. Its not a clean 100% answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I meant antipartisan stuff in the first place, sorry Probably depends on which actions. There was a whole bunch of stuff the Germans did in the name of anti-partisan warfare that didn't seem like it was designed to win the war so much as it was just troops venting their anger at the population.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:ISIS isnt demoralized by civilian casualties so that seems like a really bad plan. We're not talking about demoralization, we're talking about total war. Make sure you kill every last one of them without concern for the collateral damage. If they get a powerful hold in the Middle East, very bad things will happen. Annihilate them now completely. Go Carthage on them. Is it moral?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Yeah, this didn't happen. The Kwantung Army wasn't anything like "the entire japanese army in china". And they didn't even capture the entire Kwantung Army, they got half of it at best. In any event they loving rolled over the largest remaining force the Japanese still had outside of Japan proper with little trouble (which might call into question the idea that the Japanese were prepared to ferociously defend every of scrap of territory to the last man though I'm sure the situation would be different if the home islands were invaded). More importantly the Japanese were holding out for as long as possible in hope that negotiating through the Soviets would still allow more favorable surrender terms and get around the American's demand of an unconditional surrender, but when it was clear that the Soviets were finished with their mutual don't touch policy after Khalkhin Gol then the situation for Japan was well and truly unsalvageable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Typo posted:Manchuria isn't the rest of China This is weak and you know it. You gonna put forward an argument that the Japanese military situation in China was anything but hopeless and capitulation in China wasn't imminent regardless of what happened at Hiroshima?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:We're not talking about demoralization, we're talking about total war. Make sure you kill every last one of them without concern for the collateral damage. If they get a powerful hold in the Middle East, very bad things will happen. Annihilate them now completely. Go Carthage on them. Is it moral? I don't think the US is engaging in total war against ISIS though, more like a low level semi-proxy war against them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Typo posted:I don't think the US is engaging in total war against ISIS though, more like a low level semi-proxy war against them. Right, but my point is, if you believe the total war can be justified based on the malevolence of your enemy, would you justify total war against ISIS? Its not about whether or not we are actually doing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is weak and you know it. You gonna put forward an argument that the Japanese military situation was anything but hopeless and capitulation was imminent regardless of what happened at Hiroshima? Dude, it's not my fault if you'd rather aggressive-post and don't want to look at a map and actually think about the length of time it would take the Soviets to gear up logistics and kick the japanese out of the rest of China even if they wanted to, nor the amount of people that would have died in the process of them doing so, nor the amount of Chinese civilians which the japanese would have killed if they held eastern China for another 3-4 month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Right, but my point is, if you believe the total war can be justified based on the malevolence of your enemy, would you justify total war against ISIS? Would you eat the moon if it was made of spare ribs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Right, but my point is, if you believe the total war can be justified based on the malevolence of your enemy, would you justify total war against ISIS? No, because ISIS is actually not that strong of a force and waging total war against them would most likely be counter-productive
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Would you eat the moon if it was made of spare ribs? I feel like we have a serious disconnect right now because I have no idea how this is a response to anything
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Typo posted:I don't think the US is engaging in total war against ISIS though, more like a low level semi-proxy war against them. Okay, so if the US enters total war against ISIS we can start killing Arab civvies by the bushel? You don't seem to understand the distinction between bad things done in the service of a good cause and bad things done to win
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, so if the US enters total war against ISIS we can start killing Arab civvies by the bushel? No, because doing so would be counter-productive to winning
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I feel like we have a serious disconnect right now because I have no idea how this is a response to anything It's a question which is exactly as meaningful to the discussion as the one you posed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:We're not talking about demoralization, we're talking about total war. Make sure you kill every last one of them without concern for the collateral damage. If they get a powerful hold in the Middle East, very bad things will happen. Annihilate them now completely. Go Carthage on them. Is it moral? Its not even practical, you would have to glass literally the entire middle east, morality doesent enter it there is no way to go total war on a guerrilla force. Well not if you want to win, plenty of losers though. Even if glassed the middle east you would face massive fallout from that decision and likely would face state condoned attacks from all sorts of actors you didnt expect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Pictured: plucky little Imperial Japan
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Typo posted:No, because ISIS is actually not that strong of a force and waging total war against them would most likely be counter-productive So basically the boundary between the moral use of excessive force is determined by logistics? I can understand that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So basically the boundary between the moral use of excessive force is determined by logistics? I can understand that. That's not what he said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So basically the boundary between the moral use of excessive force is determined by logistics? I can understand that. If ISIS tomorrow were to magically capture most of the Middle-East and declare all of modern day Middle-East the Islamic state then yeah I could see myself supporting bombing whatever city they are headquartered in even if it kills civilians. But really, the boundary is also based how big of a threat somebody is, Nazi Germany and imperial japan were far far bigger threats than ISIS is and most likely ever will be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Typo posted:No, because doing so would be counter-productive to winning Do you think 'might makes right' is an acceptable moral guidline in war or in other areas of life? Because that's you keep saying, and you keep refusing to unequivocally say that the murder of civilians is bad, so I'm kind of forced to that conclusion
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do you think 'might makes right' is an acceptable moral guidline in war or in other areas of life? Because that's you keep saying, and you keep refusing to unequivocally say that the murder of civilians is bad, so I'm kind of forced to that conclusion No, and I don't think I ever claimed that it was The germans had the might to kill Jews for instance, the russians had the might to rape German women in berlin, neither of those actions are right
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:there is no way to go total war on a guerrilla force. Of course there is, the Romans did it all the time to quash rebellions. Its just a question of how little concern you have for innocent casualties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Personally I side with the guys who weren't conducting human vivisections on conquered civilians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Personally I side with the guys who weren't conducting human vivisections on conquered civilians. but but japan is victim of us imperialism
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
America was at war with Japan. America attacked Japan and killed many of its citizens. This has been a thing for 10,000 years now. 100 yrs ago we would have used sanctions and debt to cripple Japan so they could not rise up again. Instead we rebuilt them. 1,000 yrs ago, we would have conquered them, then burned thier towns and cities to the ground, tortured and killed the men of military age, enslaved and sold off the children, and raped the women. And I don't just mean rape in the sense of the sorrid little incidents of soldiers raping civilians, I mean the daughters and wives of uncooperative Japanese leaders being publicly raped in a big ceremony. 2000+ years ago we would have simply killed them all and salted their fields so nothing would grow their again. Genocide baby. When you look at human history, what we did to the Japanese was mild. But because it was done all at once with a bomb instead of over months with soldiers, its considered worse for some reason. My real question is whether or not the atomic bombs were cost effective man-power and money wise. It took x number of scientists two years to build that bomb. Plus x number of workers to mine the uranium and refine it and build the equipment and everthing else. I'm going to pull some numbers out of the air here, but lets suppose it took 4,000 people two years to research and build those bombs, and the cost of several million dollars. However many people were involved in making the bomb, I think that many soldiers working the same length of time could have killed 140,000 Japanese much cheaper. Basically, if real war crimes of any note had been committed, then their wouldn't be any Japanese left to bitch about it. WorldsStongestNerd fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Typo posted:If ISIS tomorrow were to magically capture most of the Middle-East and declare all of modern day Middle-East the Islamic state then yeah I could see myself supporting bombing whatever city they are headquartered in even if it kills civilians. Works for me, I am honestly not sure if I agree or disagree. As I said, I have been struggling with the morality of violence to counter violence and in trying to understand my personal boundaries of what makes it justifiable. I just want to make sure there is a critical perspective outside of "100% justified/unjustified" always. ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:That's not what he said. Look, I know you have this weird desire to argue against everything I say but when I am literally agreeing and being civil with a different dude and coming to an agreement you don't need to insert yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Works for me, I am honestly not sure if I agree or disagree. As I said, I have been struggling with the morality of violence to counter violence and in trying to understand my personal boundaries of what makes it justifiable. I just want to make sure there is a critical perspective outside of "100% justified/unjustified" always. And that's cool, what constitutes morally acceptable usage of force is indeed an ambiguous topic, even the most famous philosophers in history have struggled with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Personally I side with the guys who weren't conducting human vivisections on conquered civilians. Was every man, woman and child in Hiroshima and Nagasaki a member of unit 731 then? Also its kind of funny that people keep on using Japan's war crimes as a justification since the United States proved quite uninterested in pursuing some of the worst offenders when they had commies to fight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Typo posted:but but japan is victim of us imperialism Did anybody say this? I'd like to see the posts. The Japanese and German people were in fact victims of mass killings of civilians by the US in a bombing campaign of questionable military effectivess You could make a better argument that Red Army mass-rape was more justified than strategic bombing, because that was a consequence of what actually did destroy at least the German government. I think the USAF itself has come out and said that strategic bombing didn't do all that much in winning the war. I'll grant that Japan is a murkier case than Germany, but defending WW2 strategic bombing in general isn't a very good hill to die on icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Also its kind of funny that people keep on using Japan's war crimes as a justification since the United States proved quite uninterested in pursuing some of the worst offenders when they had commies to fight. America should be way more ashamed of this than dropping the bombs IMO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Was every man, woman and child in Hiroshima and Nagasaki a member of unit 731 then? The Japanese soldiers in the pacific war also weren't members of unit 731. You can claim they were all victims if you like and I would even agree with you, but they weren't victims of the US, they were victims of their own government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:
wow
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:34
|
|