M
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, SaintPatrick333,
Interesting. Do you think the Japanese Imperial fleet steaming off to Pearl Harbor would have been interested in this opinion of yours?
God bless
Interesting. Do you think the Japanese Imperial fleet steaming off to Pearl Harbor would have been interested in this opinion of yours?
God bless
S
stevegravy
Guest
Yea but our participation in it was pretty puny compared to the European empires.
G
GKC
Guest
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Spare the nuke, spoil the victory.
The mentality displayed here by the left is feminine at best. Very motherly and over-protective of what was ultimately someone’s bad kid- Japan.
They envisioned the destruction of the US and the subjugation of the American people, nationally we made the right decision. EVERY CITIZEN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THEIR GOVERNMENT. There are NO innocents in war, everyone makes a decision one way or another.
The mentality displayed here by the left is feminine at best. Very motherly and over-protective of what was ultimately someone’s bad kid- Japan.
They envisioned the destruction of the US and the subjugation of the American people, nationally we made the right decision. EVERY CITIZEN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THEIR GOVERNMENT. There are NO innocents in war, everyone makes a decision one way or another.
G
Godfollower
Guest
Very well then. You obviously stand for the proposition that there are some circumstances under which it is morally acceptable to deliberately kill an unborn human child (e.g., when you know for a fact that pregnant women will die in an atomic blast on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in order to achieve a greater good (e.g., avoiding deaths of American and Allied soldiers during an invasion).
So, my question is: when else do we get to kill unborn human children? To save the life of the mother? To avoid inconvenience to the mother? To save money? For the heck of it?
~ Unless I’ve misread you, of course. Perhaps you feel that the deliberate killing of unborn human children is always and everywhere immoral. If so, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Dresden and Hamburg and Warsaw and Frampol and London and Liverpool and Coventry and on and on and on) were immoral. Because, rather than targeting military targets and accidentally killing innocents (a non-sinful but unfortunate event under the dual effect doctrine), they deliberately targeted innocent people (a/k/a murder, a sin).
T
Telemachus
Guest
I don’t know if anybody mentioned the following already. I don’t have time to read through 12 pages of forum conversation.
I found this interesting: lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan198.html
The book he refers to is here: amazon.com/gp/product/0817912347
Basically, yes, we are responsible for having provoked the Japanese into what they did. Pearl Harbor was a suicidal act of a society backed into a corner. Who backed them into the corner if not us?
I guess I’m one of those people in “far-right” circles a la patrick457 who thinks the United States federal government was to blame. I think what the gov’t did to the Japanese was disgusting. It was immoral, period. The vast majority of the people killed were non-combatants, and it was MEANT TO BE THAT WAY. That’s an inherently immoral act.
Then again, I believe it can be safely said that the federal government of the United States has almost always done the wrong thing when it comes to foreign policy. Thanks to Wilson, and Lincoln before him, we’ve been pursuing empire for about 150 years when we should have been minding own business most of the time.
Ron Paul 2012, ya’ll!
God bless,
Tele
PS: Smash the HHS.
I found this interesting: lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan198.html
The book he refers to is here: amazon.com/gp/product/0817912347
Basically, yes, we are responsible for having provoked the Japanese into what they did. Pearl Harbor was a suicidal act of a society backed into a corner. Who backed them into the corner if not us?
I guess I’m one of those people in “far-right” circles a la patrick457 who thinks the United States federal government was to blame. I think what the gov’t did to the Japanese was disgusting. It was immoral, period. The vast majority of the people killed were non-combatants, and it was MEANT TO BE THAT WAY. That’s an inherently immoral act.
Then again, I believe it can be safely said that the federal government of the United States has almost always done the wrong thing when it comes to foreign policy. Thanks to Wilson, and Lincoln before him, we’ve been pursuing empire for about 150 years when we should have been minding own business most of the time.
Ron Paul 2012, ya’ll!
God bless,
Tele
PS: Smash the HHS.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Godfollower,
In my opinion, this is a significant misreading of the post you are commenting on.
The death of these unborn children (and their mothers, grand-mothers and great grand-mothers) is an unintended consequence of war. But, there were others who engaged in the intended consequence of murdering defenseless civilians. Note that Germans were more than happy to try out their V1 and V2 rockets on the civilians of Great Britain, the Japanese were photographed in delightful slaughter of pitching Chinese infants in the air and impaling them on their bayonets as they came falling down.
You know old General William Tecumseh Sherman was right! “War IS hell!” Personally, i am very happy it was Truman and not me that had the decision to make. Where others have pointed out that the Japanese were offered an opportunity to surrender - and the bomb would not have been dropped - other posters have scoffed at this finding fault with the offer that was made (wonder what kind of offer was made prior to Pearl Harbor?)
No one was negotiating with the Japanese until THEY decided that this is what they wanted to do. I have news for you - those innocents infants, and the pregnant women and all the other tragic deaths you want to envision would have been just as dead if the planned US invasion of Japan had taken place. Yeah, that is speculation … but, I can not think how these innocents would have been spared the bombs and canon fire that would have surely rained down on them as the US forces were approaching.
God bless Harry Truman!
In my opinion, this is a significant misreading of the post you are commenting on.
The death of these unborn children (and their mothers, grand-mothers and great grand-mothers) is an unintended consequence of war. But, there were others who engaged in the intended consequence of murdering defenseless civilians. Note that Germans were more than happy to try out their V1 and V2 rockets on the civilians of Great Britain, the Japanese were photographed in delightful slaughter of pitching Chinese infants in the air and impaling them on their bayonets as they came falling down.
You know old General William Tecumseh Sherman was right! “War IS hell!” Personally, i am very happy it was Truman and not me that had the decision to make. Where others have pointed out that the Japanese were offered an opportunity to surrender - and the bomb would not have been dropped - other posters have scoffed at this finding fault with the offer that was made (wonder what kind of offer was made prior to Pearl Harbor?)
No one was negotiating with the Japanese until THEY decided that this is what they wanted to do. I have news for you - those innocents infants, and the pregnant women and all the other tragic deaths you want to envision would have been just as dead if the planned US invasion of Japan had taken place. Yeah, that is speculation … but, I can not think how these innocents would have been spared the bombs and canon fire that would have surely rained down on them as the US forces were approaching.
God bless Harry Truman!
G
Godfollower
Guest
How is deliberately killing innocent people an unintended consequence?
From the notes of the Target Committee:
Why was Hiroshima on the list?
Note; not that it’s an important military target. The focus was on choosing cities for maximum psychological damage. This deliberate killing of innocent humans runs counter to every just war theory the Catholic Church has ever taught.
This is not firing a missile at a munitions factory during a just war and regretting that the cleaning crew got killed. This is killing innocent babies to make a political point.
We deliberately chose inhabited cities containing innocent people to die. Now, if you choose to say that you get to perform evil in order to achieve greater good, or those Japanese babies deserved it because of what their parents did, or it’s okay to kill Japanese babies so long as American soldiers stay alive, you’re entitled to that opinion; but that’s inconsistent with Catholic theology.
Call it “war is hell,” or call it “I get to do whatever I want to to defend my country regardless of morality,” or call it “I follow Jesus sometimes but not during war” or what have you. Just don’t call it moral. 'Cause it ain’t.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Look Mr. Nice Guy,
Just because you don’t understand the tactic that godless fascists, albeit of an imperial nature, used in their techniques of adjusting the population for certain work; or, for deliberately using those populated areas for the human shield factor; or, because large urban centers have the necessary civil infrastructure to convert to military use in a time of extreme war: doesn’t mean the U.S. Government, President Truman, the pilots and crew of both the Enola Gay and Bockscar, and everyone else involved in the mission didn’t.
That you don’t have a heart for what war really is, means you need to understand the US political structure and how the government is, and has been, influenced by the finance industry, and international finance as well. The same entities influence both the RINO/Neo-Cons, and the extreme left wing. Due to human nature, the left wing is taking hold- it appeals to the degenerative human spirit, which seeks, and fails, to work outside of God and the Church.
The Japanese created the issue by placing key military centers in the cities; the U.S. merely fought a tactical war. If it wouldn’t have been those people, it would have been some other massive amount, and much more blood and suffering than there was.
In the end, it could have come down to “how many of theirs will we have to kill to win?” and “How many of ours will die in the process?”, and, “Is this worth it?”. Guess what, as stomach churning as that proposition is, that is the foundational question from the squad level up to the President himself. That is war. If you’ll notice, President Reagan made the decision not to respond to the bombings of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. It was a very tough decision for him. The options were weighed, and Reagan realized a response would have brought no good thing. Truman did the same thing, and unfortunately, and fortunately, a decision was made to respond. It was the ultimate proposition- we have the power to end your entire country and you can’t stop it. We will not fight you, and we will help you rebuild, if you just stop fighting us. Remember, we didn’t attack. Japan did. They were seeking to master the Pacific just as Hitler sought to master Europe, and in his twisted little head, the world.
That you disagree with, or armchair-quarterback, almost 70 years after the fact, and from a self-righteous position that only has become engendered by increased influence of the left, is not the problem of Harry S. Truman’s memory, nor any other individual involved in the mission.
Further, out of how many documents do you draw your conclusion of the intent, and what source? Out of the tons of pages released from the project/mission, the only pertinent aspects to draw a conclusion, are these?:
Hardly.
Contd. down.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Contd from above.
Here’s a counter-argument of how badly the US was trying to reduce the carnage:
Do it quickly as possible, do it with the best moral consideration despite deadly force being a real possibility, and do so with the intent of hopefully forgiving the person(s) and ceasing hostility. Wow, what a concept and application in a tough time.
Finally, we see the reason Nagasaki was chosen as a potential target, 2nd to the preferred 1st target of the second drop- Kokura:
Conclusion: example of logic and reason failure from a product of the Marxist indoctrination; failure to properly consider reality.
As a Catholic, what do I think about Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) in light of the above?
I think that it was just another example of what sort of chaos, death and hell can result when the world is forced to choose between good and evil. Thank God that the side fighting for good made the hard decision.
Here’s a counter-argument of how badly the US was trying to reduce the carnage:
It gets even better though, and totally throws your baseless-moral ranting into the proper light; the man in charge of the entire War Department, and who was directing the operation of the project, insisted on the removal of a religiously significant town from the target list:
In other words, he was trying to consider the fact that once the war was over, it’s best to make amends and rebuild together. A spirit of forgiveness which necessitated an ultimatum which is hard to stomach at times. Sounds like a good leader. Sounds like a man who understand common sense which is easily reconciled to Christian foundational principles of defense-
Do it quickly as possible, do it with the best moral consideration despite deadly force being a real possibility, and do so with the intent of hopefully forgiving the person(s) and ceasing hostility. Wow, what a concept and application in a tough time.
Finally, we see the reason Nagasaki was chosen as a potential target, 2nd to the preferred 1st target of the second drop- Kokura:
So, basically, you took one little pixelated puzzle piece from a much larger picture-puzzle, and got mad when it didn’t fit in a puzzle of your own creation.
Conclusion: example of logic and reason failure from a product of the Marxist indoctrination; failure to properly consider reality.
As a Catholic, what do I think about Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) in light of the above?
I think that it was just another example of what sort of chaos, death and hell can result when the world is forced to choose between good and evil. Thank God that the side fighting for good made the hard decision.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
I suggest that you get out your history books and look at the behaviour of USA and Europe against China and Japan in the late 19th century, the opium wars, Boxer rebellion, and the destruction of the Japanese fleet to enforce the opening of trade.
Japan was only continuing the US/European policy against China and Korea, and doing it better. That is what stuck in Uncle Sam’s throat. Just Like Saddam Hussain a few decades later.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was without any doubt a war crime, both as defined later by the Geneva Convention, and by all the traditions of a ‘Just War’.
This also applies to the fire bombing of Tokyo, and, yes, Dresden too.
And while we are on about war crimes, what about the bombing of a German Submarine displaying the White flag and Red Cross, while its captain, having radioed for assistance, took care of the survivors of a ship he had sunk. The order, which was questioned by the bomber crew, for this action, in blatant breach of the laws of war was given by the highest authority in the US government.
Excuses will not wash these dirty hands clean.
This lesson has still not been learned.
Americans MURDERING Osama Bin Laden, like the JEWS murdering political leaders of whom they disapprove, is still MURDER.
G
GKC
Guest
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Yes, and it was a great folly, for though the survivors were put at great danger, the submarine escaped, and subsequently, the heroic captain was severely repremanded, and a direct order was issued that such mercy should never again be offered.
This folly also affected the judgements at Nueremberg, where the case was accepted as justification for deserting survivors to their fate after an attack.
Thus it was a Lose-Lose folly, and an utter disgrace to its perpetrators.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
So the claim that it was a necessary evil persists.
Actually, Japan was at the point of surrender, and negotiations were in progress with the Russians.
It was these negotiations that Uncle Sam needed to block, and the Bomb was as much a threat to the Russians as it was to Japan.
It was an act of unnecessary unbridled evil and betrayal of trust.
An act so unChristian as to qualify the perpetraitors as servants of the devil.
Bin Laden’s accusation was not far off the mark.
G
GKC
Guest
All four submarines involved escaped. Hartenstein’s actions were most commendable, as was Donitz’ reaction, in originally supporting him, in possible violation of his’ own 1939 order on not taking survivors on board U boats. Raeder countermanded Donitz’ support of Hartenstein’s ongoing actions, and Hartenstein had to cover up what he was actually doing, in attempting to include non-Italian POWs in the rescue.
U156 was sunk 6 months later on its next patrol. What consequences did Hartenstein face, other than being the cause of the “Laconia Order”? He did receive the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross, announced 5 days after the sinking.
It was Nimitz’ testimony at Nuremberg that the US had followed a roughly similar policy that blunted that particular point against Donitz, but he was convicted and sentenced anyway.
The Red Cross flags displayed are regularly mentioned in accounts of the incident, but I doubt the white flag.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Japan was not at the point of surrender, and no negotiations were in progress with the Russians. I’ve posted what was actually going on many times, over the last 3 years or so, with respect to the arguments within the Supreme Committee for the Conduct of the War, and the directions that Togo had given to Sato, re: the Russians. I might do it again, I might not; it grows wearisome.The subject of the use of the bombs has been a hobby of mine for over 10 years. My library on the history is extensive and I only post on threads like this, with respect to history, not any moral judgement. I have my own on the subject, and am not interested in comparing it to others. But I do correct history assertions.
I also recommend reading: Frank/DOWNFALL is the best account of what went on.
GKC
G
Godfollower
Guest
Fine. You have now established the principle that, under certain circumstances (just war, evil-enemy nation, etc.), it is morally acceptable to kill innocent people on purpose – as, for example, the unborn children in those cities – which were deliberately targeted by the allies. You just ask that we also do nice things (spare the emperor’s palace, etc.).
I’m asking two things:
(1) Justify your position that it’s acceptable to kill innocent people on purpose in order to achieve a greater good (after all, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that we can never do evil to achieve a greater good); and
(2) Assuming for the sake of argument that you’re right, explain what other circumstances allow us to kill innocent people. Can we abort babies that will probably die anyway? Can we nuke entire Islamic countries to reduce terrorism? Can we spread aerosolized uranium through enemy countries to reduce (or end) their birth rates?
- Status