Could the American Revolution ever be justified?

[pnewton]

**I can document, but, as noted, Mr. Newton finds a rational discussion “futile.” **

It is not rational discussion I find futile. It is sophmoric rhetoric. I do not consider exaggeration or words used incorrected to inflame opinion “rational”. Your statement is the equivalent of the old, “The Jews murdered Jesus,” and inaccurate for the same reasons, with the addition of being exaggeration.

The United States has done a lot to deserve criticism. There is no need to exaggerate or use emotional rhetoric.

 

[exnihilo]

Unfortunately, usagi, I strongly disagree that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were merely to cause fear and/or to target civilians. To the contrary, a) both cities were industrial centers producing war goods; b) Nagasaki was the home of a large naval base; and c) the line between civilians and soldiers had blurred - with civilians being armed by the military and actively looked to to defeat an invasion - to the point that both cities were legitimate military targets.

Further, I don’t believe the just war view requires that each and every act within the war be just for the war to be just.

Comparing the bombings of those cities to 9/11 is way, WAY beyond the pale.

Regarding point c, in my state I and all other able bodied men are by law members of the militia. Therefore would your logic justify attacking any and all civilians in my state?

 

[PolarGuy]

It absolutely would, Exnihilo, particularly if 1) there’s a war on, 2) which you started 3) and have waged aggressively, ruthlessly killing and raping all those in your path; 4) your militia is armed and ready to kill my soldiers, and 5) has done so in the past, and 6) is also engaged in war work, i.e., producing munitions.

Because all those circumstances applied to Japanese “civilians” circa 1945.

In WWII, American servicemen feared Japanese civilians as much as they feared the military: American bomber crews shot down over Japan could expect death at the hands of civilians.

Recall also that Japan had a TERRIBLE humanitarian record (if you can even call it that) with prisoners: If you were an American serviceman and were captured by the Germans in WWII, your chance of dying in captivity was 1 in 100. If you were captured by the Japanese, your chance of dying in captivity was 1 in 2.

For that matter, the Japanese had issued a standing order: Upon an invasion of Japan, all allied POWs – all 400,000 of them – were to be summarily killed.

If ever a modern nation can be said to have worshipped the devil, Japan in WWII was it. Their actions bespeak this. Heck, 70 years later, I won’t buy a Japanese car.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

**It is true that the USA’s atomic bombing of Japan was intended to persuade that country to immediately accept the Allied demand for unconditional surrender.
What’s becoming for well known now is that the USA’s urgency for that immediate surrender was not to eliminate the need for a US invasion (which was still three months off) but rather to forestall Russian territorial gains in the Far East.

President Truman was well aware of the imminent Russian attack against Japan.
The dropping of the atom bombs just before that attack created the impression that Japan surrendered because of US action and that the Russian attack was opportunistic.

When Japan did not immediately surrender after those bombings, Truman dropped “unconditional surrender” demand and allowed the Japanese to retain their Emperor.
The war criminal Hirohito accepted immediately for no other reason than to save his own skin.**

 

[Padres1969]

**It is true that the USA’s atomic bombing of Japan was intended to persuade that country to immediately accept the Allied demand for unconditional surrender.
What’s becoming for well known now is that the USA’s urgency for that immediate surrender was not to eliminate the need for a US invasion (which was still three months off) but rather to forestall Russian territorial gains in the Far East.

President Truman was well aware of the imminent Russian attack against Japan.
The dropping of the atom bombs just before that attack created the impression that Japan surrendered because of US action and that the Russian attack was opportunistic.

**When Japan did not immediately surrender after those bombings, Truman dropped “unconditional surrender” demand and allowed the Japanese to retain their Emperor. ****
The war criminal Hirohito accepted immediately for no other reason than to save his own skin.

Japan did in fact surrender unconditionally. The Emperor’s retention was by no means assured after the surrender and he was subject to the Supreme Commander from the outset.

 

[ialsop]

Interesting that all the Americans who trash the USA never seem to want to answer these questions:

1. Why haven’t you left yet? -and-
2. Where would you rather live?

1. Personal Finances.
2. Russia.
   Oh and before you whine to me about how Putin secretly arrests political enemies and assassinates enemies, remember that American Presidents do the same thing…

 

[ialsop]

Mikekle, in some respects you’re correct: people are “different” today. Perhaps less self reliant, or more apt to rely on the government.

However, I would add that many thousands of people worldwide are still risking everything - for example, walking away from their entire way of life - to come to the USA. Why? Because our country offers a better way of life than theirs does.

I’d add that, with due respect to your position that you’d leave if you could, the fact remains that many have left families, businesses, etc., to come to the US, but Americans aren’t leaving.'The day people actually leave the US for somewhere else is the day that nation is superior to it.

So, let me ask you, what aspects of our “way of life” are better than all the other countries is the world?

 

[ialsop]

Further, my questions are not “childish,” they are perfectly legitimate.

Posters on the moral theology board fall all over themselves answering questions like “is it a mortal sin to swat a fly?” With that as a backdrop, there is absolutely nothing childish about asking Americans, “if you think america is so bad, why haven’t you left, and where would you prefer to live?”

Hehe says the guy who called somebody else touchy…

 

[ialsop]

This statement says all anyone needs to know about the way you think and the futility of discussion.

Nice little one liner. Now explain what you mean?

What way does he think?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Europe is in big trouble and you want the US to become part the UK again? Is that what I read here???
Don’t you like the USA? It’s not perfect but becoming part of the UK again wouldn’t help the USA in any way, IMHO!!! It might help the UK???

I never claimed to be a pragmatist. But in all justice, the Thirteen Colonies rebelled wrongly against their fatherland. It would be meet and right to give it back to them, if they’d take us back.

More to the point, one of America’s chief personality traits, passed from generation to generation, is false pride and rebelliousness. If you want to thank anyone for the way Europe is, thank the success of the United States in rebelling against its rightful king. It would be a just, right act of repentance to give it back. To give it all back.

 

[PolarGuy]

So, ialsop, when you say you won’t leave the US because of “personal finances,” could you explain further?

Do you mean you’re broke and can’t afford to get yourself there? (Do you have a cell phone? Cable TV? Access to transportation? If so…you can afford to leave. Maybe you’re afraid to, but that’s something else).

Does it mean you can’t figure out a way to get what funds you have, from here to there?

Considering how many people come to the US with nothing but the shirts on their backs looking for a better life, your reason(s) for not moving to Russia seem weak.

The only valid reason you have for not leaving, IMHO, is if you’re actually too young to leave. If the reason you won’t leave is “my parents won’t let me leave,”…your love of Russia seems somewhat immature.

 

[PolarGuy]

So, ialsop, please tell us in extensive detail – why would you choose Russia (?!?) of ALL the nations on earth, as the place you’d like to live in.

And while we’re at it, please advise:

–Have you ever previously lived there?
–Traveled there?
–Studied its people? Its language?
–Do you have business contacts there? Have you done business there? What do you know about its business climate?
–Tell us: Do you admire Putin? Trotsky? Lenin? Stalin?

For all I know, you may have a lot to say about these subjects.

 

[PolarGuy]

Ialsop, you asked me how the USA’s way of life is better than all other nations on earth.

OK, I’ll educate you. Just off the top of my head:

1. KINDNESS: America, more than any nation on earth, is founded on kindness. Americans are boundlessly kind and give charitably to many other nations, much more so. Earthquake in Peru? We help. Tsunami in Thailand? Same. Famine in Africa? Same. Russia? Not so much.
2. FREEDOM: America is founded on personal freedom. In Europe the state controls things. In Russia there are no freedoms. Same goes for Russia, China, and much of Asia. Other areas with freedoms do so largely because the US led the way.
3. FREE ENTERPRISE: America is founded on the concept of free enterprise. Apple; Microsoft; Walmart; and a million other companies have given the world great innoventions, enriching the lives of millions…
4. OPPORTUNITY: …While making their owners, and those that invest in them rich.
5. SPIRIT OF INNOVENTION: Akin to #3 & #4 above, the world can be divided into 2 groups: Nations that have sent men to the moon, and those that haven’t. US innoventions include heavier than air airplanes; the electric light; cures for a multitude of diseases; the cotton gin; the assembly line; and other inventions that leapt humanity forward.
6. STORES OVERFLOWING WITH MATERIAL RICHES: Do you have any concept of what a breadline is like? If you don’t, you live in the USA. If you want to learn, move to mother Russia like you want. Do you have any concept of what a supermarket is like in Russia? Trust me, it’s NOT like a Shoprite; Publix; PriceChopper; PigglyWiggly, etc.
7. MILITARY LEADERS WHO ANSWER TO ELECTED OFFICIALS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND: Look at most of the rest of the world. This describes the USA but perilously few other nations.
8. • NON-CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS: * Would you like to encounter police in Mexico; Turkey; or other nations where you can be stopped and given a minor ticket you didn’t deserve, but which can be fixed with a bribe? Or how about corrupt judges? For that matter…
9. • A JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT IS THE WORLD’S MODEL:* Judges aren’t corrupt. Criminal defendants are assured of a fair trial. Those who can’t a lawyer get one for free. Defendants are given the benefit of the doubt and are assumed to be innocent. Try getting those in Russia. [Have you ever read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich? The inmates of that Russian prison are all innocent…and Solzenheitsen lived it and knew what it was like].
10. MILITARY HISTORY: Unlike Russia in WWII, American armies are not comprised of armies of rapists who invade a nation with their pants around their ankles, raping as they go. We conquer and build free nations in our wake (think West Germany; Japan); Russia conquers to enslave.
11. PEOPLE WHO COME HERE WITH NOTHING, MERELY FOR OPPORTUNITY.: Think Cuban boat people. You see this or you don’t. Russia, on the other hand, has a history of closing its borders to keep people in.
12. A HISTORY OF USING OUR MILITARY TO PROTECT OTHERS: In WWI, a strong case can be made that only the US saved Western Europe from the Kaiser. Since 1945, no combination of the French army (!?!), the Bundeswehr, etc., could have kept Russia in check, and only the US nuclear triad scared off the Soviets. Oh wait, heaven forbid I say something bad about mother Russia, AKA the evil empire (and they were exactly that).
13. *HOPE:*Do you even know what a “Potemkin village” is? A screen displaying a picture of a nice home, hung over a rotting shack to make it look nice to the politicians who race by it. Russia is filled with them. Google it. Further, as Bono of U2 put it, “In America you see a big house and think, ‘if I work hard I can have that. In Europe you see a big house and think, let’s get the guy who owns it.’”
14. WE HAVE ALL OF THE ABOVE; MOST OTHER COUNTRIES ONLY HAVE SOME AT BEST. Sure, England; Switzerland; and Australia are all nice nations. But only the US has ALL of the above…

-I could add, “we let people stay even when they hate us,” but I think I’ve schooled you enough for one night.

 

[exnihilo]

More to the point, one of America’s chief personality traits, passed from generation to generation, is false pride and rebelliousness. If you want to thank anyone for the way Europe is, thank the success of the United States in rebelling against its rightful king.

I agree. And these days the rebelliousness doesn’t find expression in rebellion against the state. The American people are some of the most docile people when it comes to obeying the state. Rather it finds expression in rebelling against social norms and family. The American spirit is radical individuality. The irony is a people so individually minded can never band together to oppose a tyrannical state.

 

[LethalMouse]

The colonies had been governing themselves for more than 150 years. It was the British Government that was being tyrannical. Because of all the debt that British Government had received due to its long war with France, they imposed the Stamp Act on the colonies in order to raise more money. This was a violation of the original charter made by the King. Finally, the King sent British troops to Boston to assert his authority. Go read the Declaration of Independence. It’s a long list of offenses that the British Government committed against the colonies. Were they supposed to endure unjust tyrannical power. How is that not a grave cause? Thomas Jefferson stated himself, “that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”(Declaration of Independence).

The argument that the American War for Independence was an immoral one is a poor argument at best.

I like this one, if the charter was broken then the government was no longer legitimate. Kind of like the US gov is bound by constitution. The president is not king and inherent ruler or any other official, the constitution is the legitimate gov

Now with morality comes the when to kill? A tricky question. Everytime an unconstitutional law is made we don’t go about revolution… forget morals, that be bad economy. So we work the sysytem and go to the supreme court. Even when they fail, the unconstitutional laws still pale compared to england. However from a just war theory, there is a grand question regarding legitimacy so long as the chief power in the land is undermined. Then much like the bible we have the interpretation issue. I have heard people say “we don’t have unconstitutional laws ir they wouldn’t happen” … er is that true or not? Well if one began the revolt and wanted to adhere to just war they would think so. But is it true? I would be curious if ever there were an ecclesiastical determination on the legitimacy of a gov vs that gov’s defiance of its right to rule. And would the church agree that they broke their constitution? Almost all nations have one now… if 1 rule from it is broken by the gov, is that gov legitimate?

Moreso, much like taking it to the supreme court even in lacking legitimacy when and where is the line when war is warranted, and what duty do we have church wise to a conquering authority? If another nation conquers you and rules you fairly? Do they become legitimate? Do you have the right to resistance if they aren’t hurting you? Ooooo much much philosophical questions

Oooo perfect example on this topic! American indians were conquered, then we wont even go into TX/MX stuff… so the Indians were conquered, killed and a bunch o stuff. Years later casinos. Does casinos make the US legit over them or do they have the right to war via just war doctrine? And even if they do have the right to dispell "legitimacy " via just war, since the killing stopped and casinos started, is the injustice worthy? Where does it begin/end legitamacy/injustice?

 

[pnewton]

Nice little one liner. Now explain what you mean?

What way does he think?

I was refering to the use of the word “murder”, the subect being the “US” and the exaggeration of numbers is what I was referring to. I will not be more specific for you. You can re-bait your hook.

 

[PolarGuy]

Jharek, I’m sorry, but the red army in WWII has been described as an army of rapists. Accounts of their rapes are both legion and horrific. They raped nuns; they raped concentration camp survivors who they “liberated.” They raped women in their 80s and they raped 10 year old girls. They raped pregnant women who were in the act of delivering in hospitals. The Russians suffered horrifically at the hands of the Germans, but the rape of German women, on an unimaginably large scale, is well documented. Stalin encouraged it as well; the soviet high command regarded German women as legitimate “war booty.” It was a dark chapter in the history of a nation filled with dark chapters, a nation no self respecting westerner would seek out to live in.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I agree. And these days the rebelliousness doesn’t find expression in rebellion against the state. The American people are some of the most docile people when it comes to obeying the state. Rather it finds expression in rebelling against social norms and family. The American spirit is radical individuality. The irony is a people so individually minded can never band together to oppose a tyrannical state.

No, indeed! The only way to rebel against such a chaotic state of affairs is purposeful tradition. Convention. Rule of life. Actual, intentional docility to a rule AND a ruler. One fights the American orthodoxy by becoming orthodox. One fights the American convention by being conventional. One rebels by submitting to real authority.

What an interesting, mind-screwy state of affairs. Talk about zig-zagging a trope.

 

[LethalMouse]

Yes! I did some thought on this and realized it is only being looked at from one standpoint which skews it.

Americans issued the Declaration of Independence, a piece of paper which is just that a piece of paper. It hurt no one other than perhaps economically the British.

The British get said piece of paper and have 2 options:

1. Live and let live
2. Send an army to use lethal force to submit others to their will

So the actual “war” portion of the revolution was not the Americans going to kill the British, but the opposite.

Within the just war doctrine the Americans then simply defended themselves, never even occupying the enemy via force.

So, technically the answer is no on the other half because the effects of the piece of paper did not fall under

“the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain”

Because the US did not aggress, nor inflict damage upon the British.

 

[ialsop]

So, ialsop, when you say you won’t leave the US because of “personal finances,” could you explain further?

Do you mean you’re broke and can’t afford to get yourself there? (Do you have a cell phone? Cable TV? Access to transportation? If so…you can afford to leave. Maybe you’re afraid to, but that’s something else).

Does it mean you can’t figure out a way to get what funds you have, from here to there?

Considering how many people come to the US with nothing but the shirts on their backs looking for a better life, your reason(s) for not moving to Russia seem weak.

The only valid reason you have for not leaving, IMHO, is if you’re actually too young to leave. If the reason you won’t leave is “my parents won’t let me leave,”…your love of Russia seems somewhat immature.

Yes, I am too young to leave.

And what is wrong with that?