I don't really know what a moral victory would have been...maybe the point is that there is no such thing in war, there's just victory or loss or something in between...and it's why I think the Geneva Conventions (and particularly the 4th, which is the protection of civilians during a conflict) will never really be followed, when push comes to shove.
I suppose you could argue that the Allies' declaration of war on Germany in WW2 was a moral preference to continued appeasement. In that sense, the victory could be seen as a moral victory.
moral certainty in times of war - especially total war - can be an elusive and troublesome concept. while it may be true that the victors write history, when making strategic and tactical decisions in wartime, policymakers must weight the cost of not acting, or of taking another, less difficult, approach.
the results of decisions "not made" are unknowable - all we can do is speculate and judge. however, when doing so, all sides of the issue must be heard in as fair and impartial manner as possible.
the bombs dropped at the end of the war were horrible, but they ended the war. we'll never know the cost to Japan or the Allies had they not been dropped - other than that cost would have been horrible too.
we here didn't get to make those decisions - we only get to sit back and judge - may we be fair in our judgements.
Patrick you're an idiot, as I have said before, my father went to Vietnam. Aside from the fact that the US body count - in Iraq - is a 1/10th of Vietnam, this war your brother fights is a fruitless endeavor, and will have larger implications on our future than Vietnam ever did. So, I can tell you your view means jack shit, and sorry to say this your brother's view means even less. Soccer balls are going to save Iraq? Small things matter? Bullshit. Perhaps you should Talk To An Iraqi like on This American Life, but no, you won't because they are the enemy and need to have freedom force feed to them like they're children....
Oh, and the only thing I took away from Wargames was the central point about Nuclear War, there can never be a winner; so why play the game. A lesson that I think is apt in this wrong war, against a people that did nothing to me.
Apu, it was a rhetorical question. i don't think there is such a thing. although, as ov notes, the allied victory was certainly preferable to continued appeasement.
Yes on ov's point, but you can still argue how many innocent civilians' deaths are worth a victory. If the argument can be made that dictators such as Hitler are really holding their own people hostage, then why destroy the very people you're trying to save?...and that argument can be applied to Iraq, in that we got rid of a dictator, but how many innocent civilians have now lost their lives?
again, it was rhetorical. i suppose we could speculate anything. hitler and hirohito shaking hands in a rubbled kansas city, etc. unfortunately the ones who have the most to lose in war are the innocent civilians, and most unfortunately world war ii was waged from both sides on a philosophy of total war. what we are really talking about here is how we measure the value of human lives. the proponents of war never place any value on the lives of their enemies, civilian or otherwise.
what if the japanese hadn't had attacked us? if they had bypassed pearl harbor and the phillipines and other us territories in the pacific, we may have never been involved in ww2. interesting to think about.
we were selling arms to the british. i think, one way or another, we would've had to be involved. the japanese wanted the phillipines as badly as we did. hitler was hoping to get south america to attack us. it is interesting to think about though, but i don't think this world would be possible. the axis powers were very agressive.
i'm not saying that we should all just go around ruining the earth, but in the long term there's really nothing humans can do to make any difference. considering the cataclysmic things nature can and does do the earth, humans aren't even that bad.
Hiroshema Photos Released
I don't really know what a moral victory would have been...maybe the point is that there is no such thing in war, there's just victory or loss or something in between...and it's why I think the Geneva Conventions (and particularly the 4th, which is the protection of civilians during a conflict) will never really be followed, when push comes to shove.
How would one achieve moral victory in war? I kill more humanely than my enemy?
I suppose you could argue that the Allies' declaration of war on Germany in WW2 was a moral preference to continued appeasement. In that sense, the victory could be seen as a moral victory.
moral certainty in times of war - especially total war - can be an elusive and troublesome concept. while it may be true that the victors write history, when making strategic and tactical decisions in wartime, policymakers must weight the cost of not acting, or of taking another, less difficult, approach.
the results of decisions "not made" are unknowable - all we can do is speculate and judge. however, when doing so, all sides of the issue must be heard in as fair and impartial manner as possible.
the bombs dropped at the end of the war were horrible, but they ended the war. we'll never know the cost to Japan or the Allies had they not been dropped - other than that cost would have been horrible too.
we here didn't get to make those decisions - we only get to sit back and judge - may we be fair in our judgements.
Patrick you're an idiot, as I have said before, my father went to Vietnam. Aside from the fact that the US body count - in Iraq - is a 1/10th of Vietnam, this war your brother fights is a fruitless endeavor, and will have larger implications on our future than Vietnam ever did. So, I can tell you your view means jack shit, and sorry to say this your brother's view means even less. Soccer balls are going to save Iraq? Small things matter? Bullshit. Perhaps you should Talk To An Iraqi like on This American Life, but no, you won't because they are the enemy and need to have freedom force feed to them like they're children....
Oh, and the only thing I took away from Wargames was the central point about Nuclear War, there can never be a winner; so why play the game. A lesson that I think is apt in this wrong war, against a people that did nothing to me.
You guys want to take this personal vendetta outside - it's gone way beyond reasoned debate.
digger, you're right, and i am wrong. seriously, i should have thought better than to front on this topic.
Apu, it was a rhetorical question. i don't think there is such a thing. although, as ov notes, the allied victory was certainly preferable to continued appeasement.
Thanks Digger - You turned this into a fucking disaster.
Im really startingto hate this site - Its populated with jagoffs.
Yes on ov's point, but you can still argue how many innocent civilians' deaths are worth a victory. If the argument can be made that dictators such as Hitler are really holding their own people hostage, then why destroy the very people you're trying to save?...and that argument can be applied to Iraq, in that we got rid of a dictator, but how many innocent civilians have now lost their lives?
again, it was rhetorical. i suppose we could speculate anything. hitler and hirohito shaking hands in a rubbled kansas city, etc. unfortunately the ones who have the most to lose in war are the innocent civilians, and most unfortunately world war ii was waged from both sides on a philosophy of total war. what we are really talking about here is how we measure the value of human lives. the proponents of war never place any value on the lives of their enemies, civilian or otherwise.
you don't have to be a atheist
skeptics, free thinkers, humanists, naturalists, agnostics are Brights too.
the religious are and must loose out for the violence based on lies to stop, it is child abuse.
what if the japanese hadn't had attacked us? if they had bypassed pearl harbor and the phillipines and other us territories in the pacific, we may have never been involved in ww2. interesting to think about.
we were selling arms to the british. i think, one way or another, we would've had to be involved. the japanese wanted the phillipines as badly as we did. hitler was hoping to get south america to attack us. it is interesting to think about though, but i don't think this world would be possible. the axis powers were very agressive.
This just proves that the human race is incapable of living in a non violent society. This doesn't give me hope, a passion for life or purpose.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19225731.100
i'm not saying that we should all just go around ruining the earth, but in the long term there's really nothing humans can do to make any difference. considering the cataclysmic things nature can and does do the earth, humans aren't even that bad.
http://www.extremescience.com/calderas.htm
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/
Yea, tell that to the rhinos, who'll probably be history in a couple of years...'cause, hell, we NEED those horns so we can get hard ons.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.