The Irony of Hiroshima and N. Korea

[PaulKorb]

Anyone else catch the irony here ? 60 years after the US killed a quarter of a million people – and still counting – with an atomic bomb, we are desperately trying to get N. Korea to denounce these weapons of mass destruction.

What moral authority do we have to tell other countries they can’t have nukes, when we are the only country that has ever used them?

And why should N. Korea give up it’s nuclear program? We have already demonstrated that if a country doesn’t have nukes and we don’t like them, we will invade and occupy that country (Iraq); whereas if they do have nukes and we don’t like them, we will give that country most favored trade status (China).

US foreign policy is craven, don’t you think?

 

[Philip_P]

PaulKorb:

US foreign policy is craven, don’t you think?

I don’t think craven is the right word. If we accept that characterization of US foreign policy, we shut off most hope of fixing it, too.

I do think we’ve made many errors in our foreign policy (including the destroying of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to name a couple), and that our current foreign policy is making things worse rather than better.

Rather than calling our foreign policy craven, however, I think it is far more helpful to discuss exactly what the shortcomings of our policy are, why they aren’t working, how we got here, and what we can do to rectify things.

Not that I actually expect this sort of discussion to be possible on these boards, but hey, maybe I’ll be surprised.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

I don’t think craven is the right word. If we accept that characterization of US foreign policy, we shut off most hope of fixing it, too.

I do think we’ve made many errors in our foreign policy (including the destroying of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to name a couple), and that our current foreign policy is making things worse rather than better.

Rather than calling our foreign policy craven, however, I think it is far more helpful to discuss exactly what the shortcomings of our policy are, why they aren’t working, how we got here, and what we can do to rectify things.

Not that I actually expect this sort of discussion to be possible on these boards, but hey, maybe I’ll be surprised.

I’d be surprised, too – since we start out with the proposition that somehow it’s “fair” to allow rogue nations to develop nuclear weapons and to try ot stop them is “craven.” Not exactly a problem-solving mindset.

 

[PaulKorb]

Philip P:

Rather than calling our foreign policy craven, however, I think it is far more helpful to discuss exactly what the shortcomings of our policy are, why they aren’t working, how we got here, and what we can do to rectify things.
.

It is ok to call a foreign policy craven if it is craven. The truth will set you free, you know.

What to do to rectify the situation:

1. Pull out of S. Korea (who doesn’t want us there anyway) and let the local powers deal with the North Koreans. (Ike said we should have pulled out – and that was 50 years ago!)
2. Tell the Chinese they need to stop persecuting Christians and threatening our friends in Taiwan or we aren’t going to buy anymore of their stuff.

 

[PaulKorb]

vern humphrey:

I’d be surprised, too – since we start out with the proposition that somehow it’s “fair” to allow rogue nations to develop nuclear weapons and to try ot stop them is “craven.” Not exactly a problem-solving mindset.

I did not use the word ‘fair’ as you quoted me saying.

But I did – and I still do – question the moral authority of the United States to tell other nations they can’t have nuclear weapons when we are the only ones who have ever killed anyone with them.

As for not having a ‘problem-solving mindset’, the first step to solving a problem is to correctly define it. Don’t you think, Vern ?

 

[vern_humphrey]

PaulKorb:

I did not use the word ‘fair’ as you quoted me saying.

But I did – and I still do – question the moral authority of the United States to tell other nations they can’t have nuclear weapons when we are the only ones who have ever killed anyone with them.

What is YOUR moral authority to say this?

 

[adnauseum]

PaulKorb:

I did not use the word ‘fair’ as you quoted me saying.

But I did – and I still do – question the moral authority of the United States to tell other nations they can’t have nuclear weapons when we are the only ones who have ever killed anyone with them.

Because unlike 90% of the world, we have a process known as democracy that prevents the ascent of sociopaths to absolute power.

Next question.

 

[PaulKorb]

adnauseum:

Because unlike 90% of the world, we have a process known as democracy that prevents the ascent of sociopaths to absolute power.

Next question.

Try explaining how well that process works to the innocent victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[adnauseum]

PaulKorb:

Try explaining how well that process works to the innocent victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Democracy is not superior to other forms of government because we dropped the nuke in 1945?

Your answer appears to be yes.

Sad.

 

[PaulKorb]

vern humphrey:

What is YOUR moral authority to say this?

The Catholic Church:

“Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons – especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes (CCC 2314).”

Who are we to condemn the proliferation of nuclear weapons when we are the only nation to have ever used them and when we own the vast majority of them?

 

[adnauseum]

I’m still stuck on your implication that Harry S. Truman was a sociopath while Kim Jong Il needs a hug.

Shame on you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

PaulKorb:

The Catholic Church:

“Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons – especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes (CCC 2314).”

Who are we to condemn the proliferation of nuclear weapons when we are the only nation to have ever used them and when we own the vast majority of them?

When were you ordained a bishop and authorised to condemn whole nations and condone the development of nuclear weapons by rogue states?

 

[PaulKorb]

adnauseum:

I’m still stuck on your implication that Harry S. Truman was a sociopath while Kim Jong Il needs a hug.

Shame on you.

You are attributing statements to me that I didn’t make. Shame on you.

 

[PaulKorb]

vern humphrey:

When were you ordained a bishop and authorised to condemn whole nations and condone the development of nuclear weapons by rogue states?

I did not condemn any nation.
I do not condone the development of nuclear weapons.

One does not have to be a bishop to read the Catechism.

 

[vern_humphrey]

PaulKorb:

You are attributing statements to me that I didn’t make. Shame on you.

Here’s what you said:

What moral authority do we have to tell other countries they can’t have nukes, when we are the only country that has ever used them?

And why should N. Korea give up it’s nuclear program? We have already demonstrated that if a country doesn’t have nukes and we don’t like them, we will invade and occupy that country (Iraq); whereas if they do have nukes and we don’t like them, we will give that country most favored trade status (China).

US foreign policy is craven, don’t you think?

Shame on YOU.

 

[vern_humphrey]

PaulKorb:

I did not condemn any nation.
I do not condone the development of nuclear weapons.

Then someone else using your name said this:

What moral authority do we have to tell other countries they can’t have nukes, when we are the only country that has ever used them?

In that passage you condemn the United States.

And why should N. Korea give up it’s nuclear program? We have already demonstrated that if a country doesn’t have nukes and we don’t like them, we will invade and occupy that country (Iraq); whereas if they do have nukes and we don’t like them, we will give that country most favored trade status (China).

In that paragraph you condone the development of nuclear weapons.

US foreign policy is craven, don’t you think?

And in that sentence you again condemn the United States.

PaulKorb:

One does not have to be a bishop to read the Catechism.

When one condemns the Unitexd States and condones the develoment of nuclear weapons by rogue states, one must either have authority to do so, or accept that others have equal rights to condemn what you say.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[adnauseum]

Dude, you know how John Kerry was an admitted war criminal and still condemned war crimes in Iraq many years later?

It’s sort of like that. Imagine yourself defending John Kerry, an admitted war criminal. Consider the points you might raise to defend his moral authority to judge war crimes, and then apply these same points to the United States of America.

• maybe John Kerry’s circumstances make what he did more grey than black and white
• maybe John Kerry has more direct experience with war crime which makes him perhaps a better critic
• maybe we are all sinners and so even sinners have the moral authority to condemn sin

I think you can answer your own question if you just focus like a lazer beam.

 

[PaulKorb]

Vern, one can question the prudence of US nuclear policy without condemning the nation.

The undisputed facts:

• the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons
• the US killed over 200,000 innocents -and still counting- with nukes
• CCC 2314 states: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”
• the US identified N.Korea as an “axis of evil”, yet omitted China from the list, despite China’s policy of forced abortions and their continued persecution of Christians

Why do you think China was not mentioned as an "axis of evil’? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS and N. Korea did not?

We appease nations with nuclear weapons by giving them most favored trade status and overlooking their atrocities; yet countries without nukes are condemned as an “axis of evil.” Don’t you see the cowardice in this policy ???

 

[PaulKorb]

adnauseum:

Dude, you know how John Kerry was an admitted war criminal and still condemned war crimes in Iraq many years later?

It’s sort of like that. Imagine yourself defending John Kerry, an admitted war criminal. Consider the points you might raise to defend his moral authority to judge war crimes, and then apply these same points to the United States of America.

• maybe John Kerry’s circumstances make what he did more grey than black and white
• maybe John Kerry has more direct experience with war crime which makes him perhaps a better critic
• maybe we are all sinners and so even sinners have the moral authority to condemn sin

I think you can answer your own question if you just focus like a lazer beam.

Yes, I see your point. But I don’t believe any US President has ever condemned the bombings in Japan.

 

[vern_humphrey]

PaulKorb:

Vern, one can question the prudence of US nuclear policy without condemning the nation.

But you DID condemn the nation – using words like “craven.” You also defended the development of nuclear weapons by rogue states.

PaulKorb:

The undisputed facts:

• the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons
• the US killed over 200,000 innocents -and still counting- with nukes

While the Japanese killed 19,000,000 people in China. We brought an end to the war with nuclear weapons. Had we not done that, many times that number would have died in the coming invasion. Ahd perhaps a hundred times that many would have died of cold and starvation in the coming winter.

- CCC 2314 states: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”

“Indiscriminate” is your interpretation. And you fail to balance that against the indiscriminate actions of the enemy, or even of things like the blockade.

- the US identified N.Korea as an “axis of evil”, yet omitted China from the list, despite China’s policy of forced abortions and their continued persecution of Christians

So only a foreign policy that ignores reality but meets your standards is acceptable?

PaulKorb:

Why do you think China was not mentioned as an "axis of evil’? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS and N. Korea did not?

So you feel North Korea IS justified in developing nuclear weapons?

By the way, China would be recognized by us even without nuclear weapons. Her size alone makes recognition inevitable.

PaulKorb:

We appease nations with nuclear weapons by giving them most favored trade status and overlooking their atrocities; yet countries without nukes are condemned as an “axis of evil.” Don’t you see the cowardice in this policy ???

What I see is ignorance and a holier-than-thou attitude in your condemnation of the United States and your approval of the development of nuclear weapons by rogue nations.