T
- Status
B
bobzills
Guest
For example, was it right in 1953, for the US govenment to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and install Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as head of Iran?
democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=04/03/05/1542249
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DN_Iran-Coup-1953.htm
iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php
T
thomass
Guest
When I was a PFC in Korea in the 80’s I began to pray that I would never be faced with the decision to kill another human being. The entire length of the corrugated tin roof of our motor pool, a building probably 50 - 75 feet long, was printed in large, black, block capital letters “THINK WAR.” For just a few days short of one year I thought war every day. I read war, thought war, trained war, talked war. At the risk of sounding obsessed, in many ways, I have never stopped reading, thinking or talking war since then. My studies bring me to the conclusion that war is EVIL and, in accordance with Church teaching, should be avoided. But avoiding war involves more than simply saying my enemy is evil and I have no choice. It means that we are supposed to be working for a world where war becomes so rare it offends our sensibilities. We do not do that when we are as ready to go to war as we have demonstrated ourselves to be. For me, it also means we understand better the historical circumstances that have led us to the situation in which we find ourselves. And when we find that we have contributed to the circumstance in which we are now faced with no other options, we cannot claim a just war.
D
divinecouncil
Guest
Iran, like most Middle Eastern countries, is of little worry to the US. The one country we should fear is Israel. Israel has openly said they would gun down Americans. They have the 4th largest military in the world and they are the size New Jersey. They have hundreds of Nukes, illegally. They have attacked our ships (USS Liberty), to bring us into a war with Egypt. They bombed Christians in Lebanon, and years before took over TV stations in Lebanon and showed porn films to help destroy the culture.
Isreal is not our friend.
The previous comments that have been posted , are nothing more than Neocon lies and propaganda.
I back the Pope 100%
Isreal is not our friend.
The previous comments that have been posted , are nothing more than Neocon lies and propaganda.
I back the Pope 100%
E
Elric
Guest
Actually the best way to make it a “just” war would be to make the leaders who started it fight it face to face.
A bit like that music video “Two Tribes” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood.
The thing about military targets, is trying to define what exactly they would be. Would something like a Lockheed factory be considered a military target?
It makes weapons for the military but it is owned and staffed by civilians.
E
Elric
Guest
Then the question begs: What happens after five days?
Is the threat carried out?
It might have worked and it might not have.
As far as diplomacy. Were Japan really in a position to dictate conditions for their surrender/cease of hostilities after what they had done?
Didnt the Allies (there were more than Americans fighting in this conflict) have a right to request/demand an unconditional surrender from the Japaniese, to ensure that they couldnt resume their actions that led to starting this war or begin them anew at a later date?
The US suffered the tragidy of Pearl Harbor and that was horrific, but that was nothing compared to what brutality other countries suffered at the hands of the Japaniese. I come from a country that was EXTREMLY close to being invaded by Japan (they were only stopped by the sacrifice of poorly equiped milita fighting them on islands located above our country, because our army was fighting in Africa and Europe. After which Mcarthur had the gall to call them cowards.), yet even that was a drop in the ocean compared to what others suffered.
The threat of Japan had to be stopped and made so that it could never do these things again. If they were so interested in ending the war, perhaps they should have gone for an unconditional surrender.
D
divinecouncil
Guest
M
MojeIme1981
Guest
well this one is easy to define isn’t it. Usually almost any industrial complex is considered as a military target.
B
bobzills
Guest
The point is that there were alternatives, contrary to what was implied by previous posts. These alternatives to dropping the A-Bomb on children were not tried.
The preferred alternative was a diplomatic solution:
"
“In the waning weeks and days of the Pacific War, America showed no inclination to negotiate an end to the war with the Japanese or to initiate any diplomatic initiatives to seek a prompt, peaceful end of the war to minimize further casualties on both sides. After Japan’s staggering losses and defeat in Okinawa in June 1945, Japanese leaders sought the Soviet Union’s help to negotiate a peace with the U.S. However, American leaders continued to refuse to consider Japan’s request that the surrender be conditional on the emperor remaining as the nation’s head.”
“After examining the evidence provided in the readings cited at the end of this essay, I now believe no justification exists for the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. America had already destroyed almost all of the Japanese navy and air force, so Japan could not effectively wage war or even defend itself. After steady American air bombings of Japanese cities in the first half of 1945, Japan was already on the verge of collapse when the bomb hit Hiroshima. Top-level World War II military leaders such as MacArthur and Eisenhower believed the bomb to be totally unnecessary from a military point of view (Takaki 1995, 3-4, 30-31). Even if the Hiroshima bombing could be justified, the Nagasaki bombing has absolutely no justification, since America did not even give Japanese leaders enough time to evaluate the effects of the Hiroshima bombing and to reconsider their decision to not surrender.”
See:
wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/hiroshim.htm
E
Elric
Guest
They were not tried because at the time they were thought not to be feasable alternatives. It was not a decision that was taken lightly.
The point is what would have worked to end the war as well as preventing Japan from doing the same things again. There were alternatives, yes, but were they viable alternatives?
I wish that you would stop ignoring/disregarding things.
We have been over the diplomacy thing several times, it has been pointed out why a conditional surrender was unacceptable (if the Japaniese were so interested in ending the conflict, why didnt they give up unconditionally?). Lets not forget who were the aggressors who started the war either.
Honestly I really wish that the Japaniese surrendered earlier (they had some alternatives as well). But when you read about things like the Burmese Railway (have you ever seen pictures of liberated PWOs? they look similar to liberated Jews from concertaition camps) and how civilian prisoners were murdered, I can see why the allies (again it wasnt just America involved) were not interested in conditions for surrender and why Japan had to be stopped.
What happened with the atomic bombs was truely horrific, but how can you condemn someone for trying to end a horrible conflict that they didnt actually start?
B
bobzills
Guest
Again, Top-level World War II military leaders such as MacArthur and Eisenhower believed the bomb to be totally unnecessary from a military point of view (Takaki 1995, 3-4, 30-31).
So alternatives were feasible, and dropping the A-Bomb with the result of inflicting death and horrific pain to innocent civilian children was not necessary.
B
bobzills
Guest
One of the main points of Christianity is the idea of turning the other cheek. This is another reason why it is wrong to retaliate against an unjust leader by dropping an A-Bomb on children who have nothing to do with the conflict.
Should we not follow Our Divine Lord instead of the insane military machine?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38-42)
and
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back."Luke 6:27-30.
E
Elric
Guest
MacAthur? He was an idiot, so his “point of view” doesnt really carry a lot of weight.
Besides that idiot, there were plenty of others who thought it was necessary from a military point of view. What exactly was MacAthur in favor of?
Mate, you have yet to state one feasable alternative.
There were plenty of alternatives including the Allied forces dropping their weapons and letting Japan have their way (even the Japaniese could have dropped their weapons and surrendered), but they were not feasable/realistic/viable.
I honestly think that you dont fully understand the situation at that time. If you can come up with a viable alternative to what happened to end the war and prevent Japan from continuing or redoing what they had, please say so. I would rather that there was an alternative to what happened.
B
bobzills
Guest
This type of name calling refers back more to the person who is doing the name calling rather than to General Douglas MacArthur. And what about General Eisenhower, who said that the bomb was unnecessary?
Anyway, it is completely unwarranted to call a man with the legacy of General Douglas MacArthur an idiot. Here are some of the awards and decorations received by General MacArthur.
Medal of Honor
Distinguished Service Cross with two oak leaf clusters
Army Distinguished Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters
Navy Distinguished Service Medal
Silver Star six oak leaf clusters, represented by one silver and one bronze oak leaf cluster
Distinguished Flying Cross
Bronze Star Medal with Valor device
Presidential Unit Citation six oak leaf clusters, represented by one silver and one bronze oak leaf cluster
Air Medal
Purple Heart with one oak leaf cluster
Philippine Campaign Medal
Mexican Service Medal
A graphical representation of Douglas MacArthur’s American medals, as they would be displayed today.World War I Victory Medal with five battle clasps (Aisne-Marne, Champagne-Marne, St. Mihiel, Meuse-Argonne and Defensive Sector)
Army of Occupation of Germany Medal
American Defense Service Medal with “Foreign Service” clasp
Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with two silver service stars and arrowhead device
World War II Victory Medal
Army of Occupation Medal with “Japan” clasp
National Defense Service Medal
Korean Service Medal with three bronze service stars and arrowhead device
United Nations Service Medal
Command Aviator Badge
Army General Staff Identification Badge
Fourteen Overseas Service Bars
Expert Badge with Rifle and Pistol bars
Foreign awards
Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Military Division of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath
French Légion d’honneur
French Croix de Guerre
French Medaille Militaire
British Pacific Star
Philippine Medal of Valor
Philippine Distinguished Service Star
Philippine Legion of Honor, Degree of Chief Commander
Philippine Defense Medal with one service star
Philippine Liberation Medal with four service stars
Republic of the Philippines Presidential Unit Citation
Philippine Independence Medal
Order of the Belgium Crown
Belgian Croix de Guerre
Belgian Order of the Cross
Czechoslovakian Order of the White Lion
Polish Virtuti Militari
Polish Grand Cross of Polonia Restituta
Grand Cross Netherlands Order of Orange-Nassau
Yugoslavian Order of the White Eagle
Japanese Order of the Rising Sun
Republic of Korean Presidential Unit Citation
Korean Grand Cross of the Order of Military Valour and Merit
Knight of Gran Cross of Military Order of Italy
Italian War Cross
Cuban Grand Cross of Military Merit
Ecuadorian Grand Cross Order of Abdon Calderon
Chinese Cordon of Pau Ting
Greek Medal of Honor
Guatemalan Cross of Military Merit
Hungarian Grand Cross of Military Merit
Order of Mexican Military Merit
Grand Cross Order of Romanian Military Merit
Korean War Service Medal
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur
Since you have declared him to be an idiot, what are your qualifications in this regard?
E
Elric
Guest
So with this side track/subject change, I am guessing that you cant think of a feasable/viable alternative to dropping the atomic bombs. You didnt even try to answer what MacArthur was for.
Calling MacArthur an idiot doesnt refer back to me at all. Anyone who calls people cowards (to their faces) after they had starved off an invasion while being out numbered serverly, out gunned and poorly equiped (at one stage they only had enough rifles for 1 in 4 people, yet they still fought) like he did, is frankly an idiot.
Unless of course you are suggesting that he was correct in what he said and are saying that these men were in fact cowards.
Now I really hope that you are not suggesting that decorations/medals and/or qualifications make a person great, because what would that make Jesus?
A
AndyF
Guest
No.
Nowhere does God forbid a nation to protect itself from other nations.
Specifically the Church outlines the rules:
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- **the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. **The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
So the Church grants Iran the right to possess nuclear weapons, and so is every nation.
AndyF
B
bobzills
Guest
Actually, I think it is wrong for any country to have nuclear weapons. But if Israel has nuclear weapons, the question that comes up is why then is it unreasonable for a neighboring enemy of Israel to have weapons to be able to defend itself?
O
OldRedleg
Guest
I found this news article interesting. It clearly shows who is responsible for deliberately killing innocent children (Note that this is an article from an Arab news source):
This is the type of evil mentality that we are dealing with when it comes to Isalmic Fundamentalist (read terrorists). The Iranian leadership falls into this category. Who do you trust with nuclear weapons? The U.S. or a mentality that would sanction the type of attack described above?
E
Elric
Guest
B
bobzills
Guest
The US has already used nuclear weapons against innocent children in Japan. It has amassed huge stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. For what? So that it can impose its type of pro-choice legislation on the entire world? How many innocent children have been killed in the USA because of the insane pro-choice legislation? Only recently have they decided to ban partial birth abortion.
Do you really trust a country such as the USA which has one of the highest abortion rates in the world today? Take a look at the blasphemous movies that are being produced in Hollywood? There is no shame at using Our Lord’s name in vain in movies and on television. What can be said about a country that has no respect for the sacred name of Our Lord? Why are not people protesting this?
- Status