American Atrocities

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What was going to be the “moral” way to end the War in the Pacific?

I’m curious…

Mufasa[/quote]

WHY was the U.S. there in the first place? Was it a just and moral decision to even BEGIN the war in the Pacific?

[quote]Hedo wrote:
Wonder what the op’s other screen names are?[/quote]

Click on my screen name, check out my other posts. Anyways, no other screen names do I have. Do you?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
My god… the author of this is incredibly ignorant.

Are all Christians moral?
Not by a long shot.

Are all Americans immoral?
Not by a long shot.[/quote]

Christians do not live perfect moral lives. But their lives are characterized by morality and a striving to obey God’s Law out of love for Him who saved them from His wrath. If the “christians” you have in mind have lives that are characterized by blatant immorality (i.e., “Not by a long shot”), then they are not true Christians–they are hypocrites misusing the name of Christ.

Some Americans (as well as other human beings across the globe) live outwardly moral lives. Some live outwardly immoral lives. All Christians are moral, but not all moral people are Christians.

Outward morality in and of itself does not mean that God is pleased with these people. For God told the devout, moral self-righteous religionists that it would be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the Sodomites than for them (Mathew 11:20-25). There are MANY moral people who believe that Jesus died for everyone without exception; they do not believe in a Jesus who actually saves and thus they are presently under His wrath (John 3:36).

22

[quote]derek wrote:

  1. How was Japan antagonized?[/quote]

A) Prior to the war, U.S. admin pursued hostile foreign policy towards Japan specifically designed to economically cripple its expanding empire. Japanese were left in a trap of US design and saw war as the only way out.
B) They were absolutely sure, as shown by their own historical records, that war between the US and their country was inevitable and that this state of events was desired by America.
C) US had been competing with Japan for influence in the Pacific since the Spanish-American war at the end of the 19th century. That was the real beginning of American imperialism and it paved the way for further conflicts in the 20th century.
D) There is documented evidence (and ample probable cause) indicating that FDR knew about the attack in advance and did nothing to stop it. This is the subject of an on-going academic debate.

“The Road to Pearl Harbor” Timeline
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/ww2timeline/RD-PEARL.html

“Japanese views of the attack”

“Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate”

As I recall, Hitler was the one who (rather foolishly) declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Had that not been the case, do I think the U.S. should have declared war on Germany? No. U.S. would have been better off minding it’s own business. That goes for the first world war as well. American involvement in WWI was the tipping point for the stalemate in Europe, which led to the nationally-embarassing German defeat, which directly contributed to the rise of radical elements in post-war Germany, ultimately culminating in the Nazi acquision of power. Hitler was basically spawned by America (a simplification but in the final analysis it’s true – take America out of the WWI equation and you wouldn’t have had Nazi Germany, period).

I’m not sure if I would call non-aggression a neutral stance. I see it as defensive. At any rate, you should not compare individual philosophy with national foreign policy. I’m not neutral in my outlook and I don’t avoid conflicts. Unless they don’t involve me.

23

[quote]MisterAmazing wrote:
Yeah, I mean why on earth would we bomb out Japan to win, considering we could have just kept sending our people in to die for a few more years. That would have been much more wise, the original poster is an astute genius as much as Martin Luther King Jr. was the founder of the KKK.[/quote]

The USA’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake was one of the worst things any country has ever done to another country.

These bombings were blatantly immoral atrocities and those who commanded and carried out these bombings were guilty of mass murder.

As for sending more “people in to die for a few more years”: Sending more people to murder.

Let’s try this: Does every sovereign nation have the right to defend itself against invaders? If yes, then Japan was morally right in defending itself against
American invaders. Yet I assume that you would say that America was morally right in invading in the first place. How can the opposite sides of the war both be morally right?

Mr. Amazing, eh? Amazingly foolish in advocating wholesale murder.

24

“…Was it a just and moral decision to even BEGIN the war in the Pacific?..”

That’s a question you would have to pose to the Japanese Imperial High Command at that time…

Mufasa

25

[quote]derek wrote:
Oh, one more thing, where do you train your clients? I’m from Whitman, MA. Maybe we can meet up and discuss these things in person. The internet is SOOOOOOO impersonal.

EDIT: Crap. That reads like a vieled threat. It wasn’t. Sorry if it came off that way.[/quote]

At Gold’s Gym in Arlington. I see that’s a fair north bit of where you are. I live right in the Cambridge/Somerville area outside the city. Ever come by this way?

26

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Was it a just and moral decision to even BEGIN the war in the Pacific?..”

That’s a question you would have to pose to the Japanese Imperial High Command at that time…

Mufasa
[/quote]

I’m all for self-defense and a Nation defending itself against invaders. But if there is what they call preemptive attacks then this is immoral.

27

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

The fundamental paradox for any Christian, then, becomes “do the ends justify the means”? Your actions reflect a “yes” answer. Your ideology compels you to say “no”. This is a philosophical trap which you CANNOT escape from. It is as immutable as the laws of logic. The only way out of the paradox lies in the rejection of Christianity. Sadly and pathetically, many people willingly subscribe to a self-contradictory and completely unworkable philosophy.[/quote]

What are the “ends”? What are the “means”? I don’t understand what this philosophical trap is that I am unable to escape from. Enlighten me.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I keep saying that everyone is selfish, that everything is relative, whether you “like it” or not - that’s simply how the world works. Relativism is not a state of affairs that is wished upon the world – it is a direct reflection of the condition of reality. [/quote]

Yep. Everything is relative–including your statement that everything is relative. You necessarily oppose yourself by making such self-refuting statements as that one.

28

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
What are the “ends”? What are the “means”? I don’t understand what this philosophical trap is that I am unable to escape from. Enlighten me.[/quote]

You explained it in your post. Christians, coming from a position of absolute morality, are nevertheless compelled to act from a position of moral relativism. The Christian absolute morality simply disintegrates in the real world, like a vampire hitting sunlight. For all people, at all times, the ends ALWAYS justify the means. This is the very basis for all human action. The statement is true by definition.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the ends NOT to justify the means. Try it with some more real-world examples, like the ones you posted, and see for yourself.

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Yep. Everything is relative–including your statement that everything is relative. You necessarily oppose yourself by making such self-refuting statements as that one.[/quote]

I don’t oppose myself at all because I’m the one making the statement. And I, necessarily, can only speak for myself.

A statement is utterly meaningless unless it has existential, empirical credibility. In other words, if the following cannot be determined about a particular statement, it is complete nonsense, simply noise pollution: who/what/where/how/when it was said, etc.

Statements don’t come from thin air, they come from individual human minds. Without a human mind, there are no statements, no thoughts, no concepts.

No matter what I say, I speak for myself by default - who else could I possibly speak for? Give it some thought and you will doubtless agree.

Idea’s are organic things, stored within organic matter. Information, too, is organic. In the absence of an information collector (the human mind), no information can be obtained. What I’m explaining now is so obvious that most people will never stumble onto it.

If a tree falls alone in the woods, does it make a sound?

The mathematically correct answer to that question is that there is no answer: it’s an impossible question. It fails empirical credibility. Simply stringing together a phrase of words and putting a question mark at the end does not create a question.

To answer the question, a human mind would have to be present to collect information about the tree in the woods. Yet if this is the case, then the condition of the tree being alone cannot be satisfied. It is an impossible proposition, and that is all there is to it. 95% of so-called “philosophical problems” fall into this category.

29

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

You explained it in your post. Christians, coming from a position of absolute morality, are nevertheless compelled to act from a position of moral relativism.[/quote]

Are you saying that I am somehow compelled to murder or commit adultery despite the absolute commands of Almighty God (aka, Jesus Christ)? Any and all atrocious acts are justified so long as my ends are served and glorified?

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

The Christian absolute morality simply disintegrates in the real world, like a vampire hitting sunlight. For all people, at all times, the ends ALWAYS justify the means. This is the very basis for all human action. The statement is true by definition.[/quote]

People “in the real world” should remember that they can no more annul the law of God than the law of gravity. If they pronounce those innocent of murder (or lying or adultery, etc.)who, by the Divine law, are guilty; their laws (or pronouncements) are absolute nullities in the sight of God.

If the “means” are something that God condemns as wicked and sinful, then the ends will never justify it. If God causes the modern day Robin Hood to steal from the rich in order to give to the poor, then God will judge Robin Hood for his unlawful means, regardless of Robin Hood’s “noble” ends.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the ends NOT to justify the means. Try it with some more real-world examples, like the ones you posted, and see for yourself.[/quote]

To those with wicked and foolish reasoning, the ends of “saving many lives” justifies the means of murder. To these people, it is indeed impossible for the ends not to justify the means. They do what is right in their own eyes. They can plead their “noble” ends all they like, but it will not erase the fact that they are guilty by using such unlawful means.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

I don’t oppose myself at all because I’m the one making the statement. And I, necessarily, can only speak for myself.[/quote]

But if everything is relative, why can’t I speak for you? If everything is relative, then it makes no difference whether you or I necessarily speak for you.

30

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

No. U.S. would have been better off minding it’s own business.[/quote]

In the vein of Mufasa’s posts, how would you have dealt with Hitler? To just say, “We shouldn’t have done anything.” comes across like you think the whole “Nazi fad” was wearing off. IMO, letting Hitler take the rest of Europe and further develop nuclear, jet propulsion, and submarine technologies (among others) would only made things worse for Americans.

And there has got to be some moral relativism coinage in turning your back on your allies (or any genocide of that scope). Good men doing nothing and all that.

31

[quote]extol7extol wrote:

WHY was the U.S. there in the first place?
…[/quote]

Is this a serious question? If so, you have a lot to learn before you start voicing your opinion on the subject.

32

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I believe the author of that little piece formed his conclusion that America and its military is evil and then tried to twist the facts to support his twisted thoughts.
[/quote]

On the contrary, I believe your statement above describes how you form your conclusions. The author of the piece formed his conclusion of America and the military through the lens of Scripture.

The following quote is from a veteran I know(who will of course remain anonymous):

“I fought in the Iraq war in 2003…I saw everything first hand and even got a chance to visit Sadams palace and the ancient city of Babylon (now being reconstructed.) For me, the whole war felt empty and meaningless, mainly because so many Americans just disgust me. I kept thinking, what the heck am I fighting for? For soldiers like these to pass out porno magazines to the Iraqi peoples and bring our own corruption to
this country? For these arrogant female (feminist) soldiers to demonstrate
their anger and pride in this country as well. We give them liberation and
food in one hand…then when the camera is off (or on if its politically
correct), toss them all our dirty laundry. Feminism, pornography, homosexuality, arminianism, humanism, relativism, you name it. Is that
really liberation?”

Me now:

Man, he told it like it is! Here America is, supposedly “spreading freedom”
around the world, and what are they spreading? American immorality. So the
Iraqis go from being in bondage to Saddam Hussein to being in bondage to
American immorality. That’s freedom? That’s liberation? “Freedom” is the
religion of the Bush administration. You can invade another country that
has not attacked your country as long as you are giving that country
“freedom.” The ends justify the means – go kill hundreds of thousands of
people who have not attacked you so you can give that country America’s
version of “freedom.” It is just so disgusting. And it’s not just the
administration that is disgusting. As this man said, the SOLDIERS are
disgusting. Support the troops? I don’t. They’re a bunch of perverts, peddling their perversity across the world. [1] You think Abu Ghraib was an anomaly? Yeah, right.

[1] Not all soldiers are perverts; just the ones doing and/or endorsing the said peddling.

And people like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Oliver
North are revered (worshipped?) by “evangelical Christians” and support the
war, support the killing (while hypocritically being against abortion),
support preemptive strikes against nations that have not attacked us,
support the spreading of “Americanism” around the world. Disgusting.

33

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Me now:

Man, he told it like it is! Here America is, supposedly “spreading freedom”
around the world, and what are they spreading? American immorality. So the
Iraqis go from being in bondage to Saddam Hussein to being in bondage to
American immorality. That’s freedom? That’s liberation? “Freedom” is the
religion of the Bush administration. You can invade another country that
has not attacked your country as long as you are giving that country
“freedom.” The ends justify the means – go kill hundreds of thousands of
people who have not attacked you so you can give that country America’s
version of “freedom.” It is just so disgusting. And it’s not just the
administration that is disgusting. As this man said, the SOLDIERS are
disgusting. Support the troops? I don’t. They’re a bunch of perverts, peddling their perversity across the world. [1] You think Abu Ghraib was an anomaly? Yeah, right.

[1] Not all soldiers are perverts; just the ones doing and/or endorsing the said peddling.

And people like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Oliver
North are revered (worshipped?) by “evangelical Christians” and support the
war, support the killing (while hypocritically being against abortion),
support preemptive strikes against nations that have not attacked us,
support the spreading of “Americanism” around the world. Disgusting.[/quote]

Yikes, another moonbat!

What’s in the water?

34

Pervert!

35


Mercenary!

36


Porn peddler.

37

There is no christian dogma that is absolutely against war. Ever take a look through the bible?

I’m a christian, I believe in moral absolutes. I also believe that digging the moral nugget out of some situations is damn near impossible. Heck, I’m sure most christians recognize this. Ever heard of a christian that prayed for some kind of guidance in making the right moral choice?

What exactly has been proven here? Something us christians already knew?

38

Another perv!

39

Murderer!

40

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
[1] Not all soldiers are perverts; just the ones doing and/or endorsing the said peddling.
[/quote]

Not all men are rapists; just the ones doing the raping.

DUH!

Not all animals eat meat; just the ones that eat meat.

DUH!

Not all people are stupid; just the ones who are stupid.

Yes, that would be YOU!