Just over half of voters do.
I guess holding everyone accountable for the decisions of the few elected by the majority would be a good way to get rid of democracy, if it’s a desirable result.
2 Likes
They could always leave. That’s the funny thing about America; you have all of these people complaining about how horrible it is here yet, none of them want to leave.
It would be weird to not disagree. The lynchers were not murderers because it was legal at the time. Murder is a legal conclusion and you need to break the law to get convicted of it. If lynching had been illegal at the time, maybe they wouldn’t have done it. How can someone be guilty of breaking a law that didn’t exist? Imagine a street that you’ve driven on for years that one day has its speed limit lowered. Are you a speeder now because in the past you drove faster than the current limit even though it was legal when you did it? Can you be issued tickets for the past offenses that at the time were not offenses?
2 Likes
So the theoretical 49% of the population who, in this case, theoretically voted to not go to war, or voted for a politician who said they wouldn’t go to war, should leave their home country if a war starts and they don’t want to support it?
2 Likes
when the UN decided to officially give Israel a state the arab league was against it and was out to commit genocide (it has been proven that this was their agenda and not just intimidation.
the civilians in the area didnt want to be in the cross fire so they all went to gaza expecting the jews to be all slaughtered by the time they come back.
the arab league admitted defeat and those people who left for gaza acted as if the were expelled 
, 75% of the people in gaza are refugees.
They are not wanted in gaza because they have over crowded it but they are the majority over there and basically live in a fantasy world that they can return, so they dedicate their lives and their childrens futures on waging a war they cant win.
it would be in the best interest of israel and the world to blame this on " hamas", say they were the problem all along, get rid of them- plant a pro western leader to replace him and as long as everyone goes by that narrative the people in gaza can start building themselves and living a normal life.
one inconvenient truth is that hamas is just one organization, there are many others that have been and still to come, the entire people of gaza dont want to have israel as a neighbour and a lot of them would probably like to annihilate not only israel as state but all the people living there too.
if they are going to do another Iraq yoyu saw how that worked out, ISIS and after that a corrupt non functioning anti west regime even though they are the ones who put them in power.
it will take many generations of ofsetting the years of brainwash these people have for almost a century, imo it would have been easier if we went back to how things were before this invention of democracy and a semingly atempt att globalism by the people who are in power.
back then when you went to war doesnt matter if you are the aggressor or defender, you would either enslave the people you conquered and commited genocide as expelling them would just lead to retrobution down the road.
nowadays you fight an enemy that is 10% your capacity but only allowed to use 5% of yours, how rediculous.
and the people willingly staying behind as human sheilds are doing it because if they die as martyrs there family gets an increase in status and economic security which is lacking because all the aid money from the west went to building underground tunnels and rockets.
you could have build the new burj khalifa with the amount of cement they wasted by burrying it u derground
They can do what they want. I’m not saying what they should do. Democracy doesn’t mean you always get what you want. What’s better? The minority get to decide if we go to war?
Isn’t that a porn star?
1 Like
Why is there a second thread for this?
Because nobody’s started a third one yet.
6 Likes
Hold my Allen’s…
Also: I’m not sure anywhere has democracy. We are supposed to have a constitutional republic, which has become more of a democratic republic. But I agree no one should vote for warmongers.
The “love it or leave it” argument is not a good one. It presumes that political matters are and should be the center of everyone’s world, presumes culture doesn’t matter, etc.
Democracy comes in different forms.
That wasn’t the point. The point was people claim they hate the US but don’t leave it.
Right. And, to the extent it would make sense to punish everyone in a place, it would only make any sense at all somewhere with a true democracy(where every issue is voted on).
I must have joined this after someone claimed that. I was under the impression the civilians being discussed were actually the Japanese. I’m not sure how much control the Japanese citizens had over their military 80 years ago, but I have a feeling it was even less than the average U.S. citizen has over the U.S. military today(or then).
Or are you arguing that questioning the sole uses of nuclear weapons against people(civilians at that) is akin to declaring hatred for the U.S.?
1 Like
I don’t know that anyone did.
1 Like
It is those Americans with “pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness” that find complaining to be therapeutic.
I agree with @zecarlo that laws should never be applied retroactively. But I tended to believe you meant to be making a moral point. And even to a moral point, it is disingenuous to judge the character of a person decades ago by the moral accepted standards of today. Example: My dad, born Yankee, loved to study the Civil War history. He often commented on the honor of General Robert E. Lee. Yet by today’s moral accepted standards, Robert E. Lee is considered a disgraceful person of no honor.
Here’s a question, what about the possible benefits of war? You have woke people calling America a country built by racists who committed genocide against the Indians. Let’s agree with that characterization for argument’s sake. These woke people have no problems reaping the benefits of American expansionism and Manifest Destiny however. If we bring it back to Israel; it’s ok for Palestinians to invade Israeli homes and torture, rape and kill because it’s their land, according to Palestinian sympathizers. Would any of these woke people be ok with a Native American breaking into their homes and killing everyone because it’s technically their land?
So maybe most Japanese people did not play a role in their government’s decision making. A big part of that is historically and culturally based. The country still had an emperor. It’s not really correct to judge Japan and its people through a western lens and by western values. They may have been perfectly fine with an emperor ruling over them. And getting back to the benefits, had Japan won, how many Japanese citizens would have complained?
I know this was rhetorical, but for those that do not know.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Although:
The Supreme Court has held that the constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws do not apply to crimes committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States against the laws of a foreign country. - See Neely v. Henkel
1 Like
This is referred to as Presentism in the historical world and disdained greatly by anyone with logic.
3 Likes
I can agree with this. I think it would be wrong to go back and charge people for stuff they did if it was legal at the time.
Maybe we won’t see eye to eye on this. I wouldn’t have an issue with calling those people who did the lynchings murderers as a label. Aside from a few caveats (stuff like manslaughter), murder is killing without a proper justification. For our example, killing through lynching was legally seen as proper justification (and I agree with you and @RT_Nomad on the legal side of things). I suspect that most people back then understood that the method of killing wasn’t a justification for the act morally. If that is true, I don’t have an issue applying the label to them.
I agree with you here. I am more talking about how we label certain acts from the past. Even for just labeling, we need to look at each case individually. It isn’t one size fits all.
I think this is where the one size fits all doesn’t work. Each case needs to be looked at. Questions like what did society think of these behaviors at the time. I think of the many black face incidents that have come up showing some celebrity or politician from decades ago doing black face at a Halloween party or something. For that, I’d say it is wrong to judge those people for it. Societies views from the era seem to be that it was an acceptable thing to do at the time.
For the war crimes thing, I wouldn’t judge an ancient society the same way as a modern one. I believe that by WWII, most high rank people in the US viewed killing civilians as a bad thing. I couldn’t say that about the ancient Israelis. If we take the Bible’s stories of the Jews not sparing the women and children after beating an opposing tribe in battle, I don’t think it would be fair to judge them for that. It was par for the course back then. Socially acceptable.
Of course, I am assuming to know what the social standards were at WWII. I could be wrong about it. I am also not speaking in terms of legality. Only morality. My take is that if one from the past knew the action was wrong (but legal), but then does the action, then they should be able to have a negative label assigned to them for that action.
Perhaps to people that don’t know much about him. I think in this case an examination of his story paints a different picture than what some newer narratives say.
2 Likes