logo Sign In

A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
Where's F.D.R. when you need him?

To the Congress of the United States:

Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleagues delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

This morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
What a difference 60 years makes. Now it is the United States that is the unprovoked aggressor.

Though we did not "sneak" attack Iraq, we were nevertheless completely unprovoked. (Unless, of course, you count violation of U.N. resolutions as a provocation for invasion and occupation ... in which case, where is our invastion of Israel???).


I am ASHAMED to be an American.



But hardly ashamed to be me. So you can stop all the self-hater bullsh!t before you start. I do not have to identify as an American, and I do not. I am an individual human being, and I will not be identified with any of the myriad dastardly deeds of the U.S. Empire. It may not be as bad as the Japanese Empire was in 1941 .... but a rapist may not be as bad as a murderer, and yet both are bad-to-the-bone.



.
Author
Time
Post link
Wow, I usually keep track of this and had been anticipating this date for a couple of weeks now, but today I'd totally forgotten that this was the 65th anniversary of that. Thanks for the reminder, JediSage. And I don't think I've ever seen FDR's declaration in its entirety.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
What a difference 60 years makes. Now it is the United States that is the unprovoked aggressor.

Though we did not "sneak" attack Iraq, we were nevertheless completely unprovoked. (Unless, of course, you count violation of U.N. resolutions as a provocation for invasion and occupation ... in which case, where is our invastion of Israel???).


I am ASHAMED to be an American.



But hardly ashamed to be me. So you can stop all the self-hater bullsh!t before you start. I do not have to identify as an American, and I do not. I am an individual human being, and I will not be identified with any of the myriad dastardly deeds of the U.S. Empire. It may not be as bad as the Japanese Empire was in 1941 .... but a rapist may not be as bad as a murderer, and yet both are bad-to-the-bone.


LMAO!!...I wish I could embed a sound file of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A." in my reply, but rest assured I'm playing it on my iPod in salute to your reply. The 65 years doesn't really make that much of a difference. If modern day leftists had been around back then they'd have blamed F.D.R. for cutting off Japan's oil supply (if only they'd use wind power maybe it could have been avoided!) and provoking an attack; then again maybe not. Stalin had to be saved, after all.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Its like Tom Brokaw said: This is the Greatest Generation.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
What a difference 60 years makes. Now it is the United States that is the unprovoked aggressor.

Though we did not "sneak" attack Iraq, we were nevertheless completely unprovoked. (Unless, of course, you count violation of U.N. resolutions as a provocation for invasion and occupation ... in which case, where is our invastion of Israel???).


First, the context for a UN resolution is more important than a UN resolution itself. In case you don't remember, we had already gone to war against Saddam in 1990. At the end of the war (in 1991), Saddam made an agreement. The agreement was not lived up to on his part, even 10 years later. This newest war was to continue enforcing the previous. That hardly fits the definition of "unprovoked" (unless you consider the first Gulf War to have been unprovoked). (And don't bother arguing that there were no "WMDs" since we actually did find some and because Saddam had played his games for 10 years by the point this new war began.)

Secondly, and more importantly if you ask me, when you consider Saddam's spoken threats aimed at the United States, his strong support of terrorism, and his vast amount of wealth (oil), you could easily argue that he posed a very large threat to the United States and its interests. When attacking a clear threat like that, I believe it is equally clear that we can consider our nation "provoked."


You can disagree if the war in iraq was the wisest decision if you ask me. You can argue that the war was not run well (as do I), but to claim that it was "unprovoked" is ridiculous. I'm sorry.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Thank you for that observation tiptup! I get very annoyed with all these "ashamed to be an American" people. There are a lot of things shameful about America, but by saying I am ashamed to be an American, you are tossing all the rest of the American people into that very same bowl of shame. You could be ashamed of your government, but stop dising America as a whole. I agree, there was plenty of provacation, and plenty of right to attack. Another thing that annoys me is how everybody in America seems to think of the universe as this:

America | Rest of the world

There isn't such a gap, the rest of the world is right beyond the door whether you want to admit it or not. The problems in the rest of the world are our problems too, and everything one of us does effects the rest. China wants nuclear weapons? Well, we have the right they have the right, right? After all they live in a different universe than us! If Iraq wants WMDs, let em have em! They have every right to them as we do! After all they live in a different universe than us! Wake the hell up!

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
I can't believe someone would post some crap here about being "ashamed to be an American." This mentality is one of the most upsetting things someone can hear from a fellow countryman/woman. Sure, you don't have to like/agree with everything the U.S. does, but that doesn't mean you should go ahead and declare it the Great Satan. People like this should try living in a country without the luxuries, freedoms, and amenities we have here in the U.S. I guarantee they'd change their tune quickly. I find it disgraceful they should choose the Pearl Harbor thread to vent their anger. This day is about remembering and honoring our fallen family members, not disgracing them by saying that you hate the country they gave their lives for.

Mahoromatic Revival Project – http://mahoromaticrevival.com/index2.html
Follow the Evangelion Instrumental Project! – http://sandcamel.blogspot.com
Cowboy Bebop Returns! – http://bebopreturns.blogspot.com

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: BrikHaus81
People like this should try living in a country without the luxuries, freedoms, and amenities we have here in the U.S. I guarantee they'd change their tune quickly.


Couldn't have said it better.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: BrikHaus81
I can't believe someone would post some crap here about being "ashamed to be an American." This mentality is one of the most upsetting things someone can hear from a fellow countryman/woman. Sure, you don't have to like/agree with everything the U.S. does, but that doesn't mean you should go ahead and declare it the Great Satan. People like this should try living in a country without the luxuries, freedoms, and amenities we have here in the U.S. I guarantee they'd change their tune quickly. I find it disgraceful they should choose the Pearl Harbor thread to vent their anger. This day is about remembering and honoring our fallen family members, not disgracing them by saying that you hate the country they gave their lives for.


Amen, Brikhaus.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I find it hard to believe that anyone could imagine the subject of Pearl Harbor being brought up on the day after the Iraq Study Group report is issued, and not expect the similarities of the two situations to come into play.

Perhaps if our country wasn't currently an invading and occupying military force, the two situations would not be linked. But that's not the case here and now. Honest people can differ as to who is the aggressor, but there's no denying that the two invasion situations beg comparison on the anniversary of one and the continuing controversy of the other.


For the record, I didn't say I hate America; I said I am ashamed to be an American. Perhaps if our government was the totalitarian regime it aspires to, I would not hold myself or my countrymen responsible for its actions. But, though far from the government for the people, of the people and by the people that the Founding Fathers envisioned, we still have some semblance of representative government in the United States ... and the actions taken by that government are taken in the name of the American people.

To clarify ... I am not ashamed of the American people. I am ashamed of our government, which speaks and acts for the American people to the rest of the world. And I do not imagine the rest of the world as a monolithic entity, but neither do I imagine the rest of the world as having lesser status than the United States. If we have nuclear weapons, who are we to insist that other nations not have them? We who are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war cannot be the moral arbiter of who should have such weapons.

Perhaps we might, on the anniversary of the day the Japanese attacked the United States, also recall the final way in which we responded to that attack, and compare a despicable sneak attack on military targets to a devestating nuclear annihilation perpetrated on civilian targets.


You can rationalize all you want, but I will honor all those fallen by violent attack ... and not merely those from one "side" or another.


.
Author
Time
Post link
Um, yeah... But there is a difference between attacking a nation that has no part in the war and attacking a corrupt regime that turns a blind eye to terrorism and murders it's own people.

This is where you fail at the equation of common sense--America--we're not perfect, but we're STILL the good guys. To ethically equate Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor with our invasion of Iraq is nothing but mind-rotting moral relativism. We not only warned Iraq first, but we gave them YEARS to comply with the UN resolutions. They did not, so they brought the war upon themselves.

4

Author
Time
Post link
"But, though far from the government for the people, of the people and by the people that the Founding Fathers envisioned, we still have some semblance of representative government in the United States"

Actually, the Founding Fathers intended a republic, not a direct democracy. They wanted a government that would listen to the people but not subject itself to every popular whim.

And can you believe after Pearl Harbor, we also declared war on Germany? Every study and expert group had said Germany had absolutly no involvement in Pearl Harbor! We were such an unprovoked aggresor to go to war against the Nazi's and Italy. Clealy just an attempt by FDR to profit off his relationship with Big Beer.

I still don't see how the US commited so many dastardly deeds if the mayor of Tall 'Afar, Iraq would refer to our military as "Knights of a bygone era," for liberating (yes he used that exact word) his city from being the headquarters of terrorist al-Zarqawi.

Saddam behaved very strangley over the years if he didn't have any weapons. Why wouldn't he have just let the UN inspectors in in that regard? There already is justification for preemptive strike from the 1930's. It's easy to say WWII was justified now but it wasn't so easy to see when the Nazi's were building on their power at the time. It was morally wrong for Europe not to launch a preemtive strike but instead brand people like Churchill fear mongerers of a phony war. After all, most people were weary of the first great war and to get in another one, without the stakes being fully immenient might make the leaders unpopular. Appeasement and peace negotiations FAILED as they always will when one of the parties is intent on world domination, destruction or both. You can never make a deal with the devil or pure evil incarnate.

Let me put it another way. You're in a bar that can get a little rough. It's not uncommon there in a fight between hostile people for one of them to end up dead. Some guy who is clearly not a friend and has a history of being a bully forces you at gun point to a secluded area of the bar. He's really a small punk who doesn't seem that powerful. It's hard to know for sure exactly how dangerous he is. For all you know his gun might not even be loaded. Yet he's still waving his gun at you and making vague threats about how great and glorious it will be with you wiped out. You happen to have a gun of your own at the ready.
Are you justified in shooting first?

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

Honest people can differ as to who is the aggressor, but there's no denying that the two invasion situations beg comparison on the anniversary of one and the continuing controversy of the other.

In my estimation, the unjustified aggressor in our current war is just as clear as any invasion comparisons you speak of.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

Perhaps if our government was the totalitarian regime it aspires to, I would not hold myself or my countrymen responsible for its actions.


Wow, interesting sentiments. I'd be very interested to hear what you'd say about some of the actions Abraham Lincoln took as president.



Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

Perhaps we might, on the anniversary of the day the Japanese attacked the United States, also recall the final way in which we responded to that attack, and compare a despicable sneak attack on military targets to a devestating nuclear annihilation perpetrated on civilian targets.


You can rationalize all you want, but I will honor all those fallen by violent attack ... and not merely those from one "side" or another.


Civilian casualties are sadly unavoidable when an entire country is a mobilized threat, or when military targets specifically use civilians as a shield. Perhaps the atomic bombs dropped on Japan went too far, but don't pretend that many Japanese civilians wouldn't have died if we had taken another course of action.

Otherwise, are you one who considers himself opposed to all forms of violence? You do not distinguish between justified violence and unjustified violence?

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Perhaps if our government was the totalitarian regime it aspires to, I would not hold myself or my countrymen responsible for its actions.


I wish you knew what a totalitarian regime was really like. Then you would not compare America to one. All you know is that it is not a good thing, and you don't feel the American government is a good thing, so in your mind they might as well be the same. America is the complete opposite of everything any totalitarian state would stand for. Where my wife is from, when she was little she was always told that she lived in the most prosperous country in the world. They would tell everyone how poor America was and how America wanted to invade them. All the people knew how much the Americans and the Russians lusted after their country, but they didn't fear too much. After all, they were the most powerful nation in the world. They would liken America to a cartoon tiger, it didn't realize it was a cartoon, America thought it was the real thing. It went around growling and snarling, threatening everyone, while it was really completely harmless. Everybody laughed at the idea of a cartoon tiger running around making threats, when in reality it was just a colourful little kitten. In the morning you would stand in line to get your milk ration, at some point, without fail the milk would run out. When this happened nobody would say, "Hey, the milk is out, everybody just go home. Better luck tomorrow." No. You knew the milk was out, you saw people walking away empty handed. But you didn't say anything. If you did any number of things could happen to you, but none of them would be pleasant. No. You waited in line, once you got to the front of the cue they would tell you the milk was out, and wish you better luck tomorrow. Then, you would go home. To say the milk was out and to leave the cue before getting to the front would be to admit that there was a problem, a milk shortage. But in your society there are never any problems. Never. Your society is perfect!
This is what it means to live in a totalitarian state. I am not saying that America could not one day succumb to such a regime. If it did, it would be a very long ways off, and some very large changes in the way we think would have to take place first. To say America aspires to be totalitarian is the sheerest of ignorance. I take it George Orwell is no longer required reading in American High Schools? That is truly a shame.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." - Nineteen Eighty-Four.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Let us not forget that the UN was created by FDR and Churchill during WWII. There is a reason why the five permanent members of the Security Council are who they are: Those who stood in opposition to the Axis powers.

The stated aims of the United Nations are to prevent war, to safeguard human rights, to provide a mechanism for international law, and to promote social and economic progress, improve living standards and fight diseases. It gives the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems. Toward these ends it ratified a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Originally posted by: BrikHaus81
People like this should try living in a country without the luxuries, freedoms, and amenities we have here in the U.S. I guarantee they'd change their tune quickly.


Couldn't have said it better.


Why, yes, i lived in France for a large part of my youth, and i must say that it will change your tune indeed. You should try to LEAVE the States....

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link
Wow, so much to respond to.

I apologize in advance for my scattershot approach.


I deplore some of the stuff that Lincoln did during the civil war. Supsending habeas corpus was as repugnant then as it is now. But I don't hold the morality of the last century up to the standards of this one. That's the nature of civilizational progress. Nevertheless, I don't give Lincoln a pass.

That perfectly illustrates the dangers, however, of a perpetual state of war (such as the War on Terror) --- powers-that-be will be tempted to, and will, use a war state as an excuse to suspend civil liberties (Bush has suspended habeas corpus for captured "enemy combatants" and has violated the 4th Amendment as to U.S. citizens). If a state of war is perpetual, so are the suspensions of civil liberties.

The comparison to the USSR is outrageous. I did not equate the U.S. and the USSR. I said the current administration aspires to be a totatlitarian regime; I did not say it was one. And yet the steps the administration is taking to consolidate and expand presidential power, while thumbing its nose at the authorities of Congress (e.g., signing statements instead of vetos) and the Supreme Court (disregarding rulings re enemy combatants) as well as the Constitution (warrantless searches of U.S. citizens) - clearly indicate a desire to transform this republic into a more totalitarian state - -with power resting solely in one branch of government, rather than a system of checks and balances among three.

This is not an equation either ... but I'm sure many Germans did not realize the step-by-step transition to Nazi rule until it was too late. I'm not saying the U.S. will become that depraved, but it's naive to think entities and persons who desire controlling power and domination won't rise to positions where that can be attempted and perhaps achieved.


As for whether I think any violence is justified ... you won't be surprised to discover that I consider very little truly justified. If you think tens of thousand of Iraqi civilians "got what they deserved" because their unelected head of government was a madman with delusions of dangerous grandeur, then I hope you'll be accepting of your fate when some vengeful Iraqis feel any American gets what they deserve in response to, say, torture at Abu-Graib authorized by Donald Rumsfeld.


In any event ... the Japanese military attacked a military target on December 7, 1941. Their "entire country" was no more behind their war effort than our entire country would become. And our final response to that attack was nuclear annihilation of civilian targets. Go ahead and rationalize that all you please. The depravity of rationalizing a nuclear attack on civilians is disgusting ... but if it will make any of you feel better, go right ahead. And sleep well.



.
Author
Time
Post link
I imagine you read a lot of Noam Chomsky...
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Not too much, actually (not even after Hugo Chavez recently revived Chomsky's popularity after pronouncing him mistakenly dead) ... but we are pretty sympatico in our political leanings.
Author
Time
Post link
From "Criticism of Noam Chomsky's Politics" wiki:

"In The End of Faith, Sam Harris criticizes the ethical propositions that lead Chomsky to direct his rhetoric towards the United States foreign policy (as opposed to the tenets of radical Islam):

Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, cold not be more distinct... For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all."

Yeah, I see the resemblence.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Nope, I do not equate collateral damage (so-called) with terrorism. Terrorism is far more repugnant and evil. Absolutely so.


Murder may be more repugnant and evil than rape, but I feel compelled to decry both ... and both are criminal. Both are worthy of denouncement.


I don't see much ray-of-light in Islamic Jihadist Terrorism, and furthermore I am not a citizen of a nation where that is the prevailing authority. And so I mostly speak out against American evils, precisely because I do see a ray-of-light in the American system of representative democracy and generally judeao-christian-inspired values. I think the abuses and evils perpetrated by many successive waves of the United States government over time are abhorent to the ideals and values of America ... and I cherish my American right to speak out against them without being subject to ill treatment (a right which, btw, has been and is currently abused by government adminstrations of this country).


But don't equate my criticism of my own nation with approval of terrorism or facsism or jihadism or totalitatianism abroad. Don't equate my stance against rape with an approval of murder. Terrorists are scum with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Criticism is wasted. On the other hand, I hope for America to improve ... and criticism of our government is not only warranted, but is profoundly patriotic.


.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

I deplore some of the stuff that Lincoln did during the civil war. Supsending habeas corpus was as repugnant then as it is now. But I don't hold the morality of the last century up to the standards of this one. That's the nature of civilizational progress. Nevertheless, I don't give Lincoln a pass.

Alright, but my point was that Lincoln went far, far further than Bush has gone. Many of the properly checked capabilities he advocates for government simply lead to strong law enforcement in my mind and should be active whether we’re at war or not.

Under our justice system, non-citizens should not have the same protections as we do (particularly captured enemies). That’s not to say that decency and ethics should not require us to protect their basic rights as human beings, but that foreign threats should not be given the extra protections we enjoy.

I also believe that under certain circumstances government should be granted temporary powers to properly execute a war. For example, a war on terror leading to the automatic “wiretapping” of native civilians under the correct circumstances is perfectly acceptable. Not every action has to be pre-approved; we can review actions after they have taken place. There’s nothing extreme about this, and therefore there is no reason that it cannot be temporarily allowed.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

As for whether I think any violence is justified ... you won't be surprised to discover that I consider very little truly justified.


Then you must live in a horrible universe from your perspective. Violence can be found almost anywhere. Stars are violent. Light bulbs are violent. Surgery is violent. Life is violent. Violence is unavoidable.

You cannot appeal to me that violence is evil in and of itself. You cannot merely say “people were killed and that’s evil!” That’s a meaningless statement. Violence is neutral. It is the context in which violence is used that allows us to judge it as good or evil.

If a society launches an unjustified war against another, we can conclude that the violence is evil. If another society then seeks to destroy the society that began the unjustified war, that violent action can be considered justified and good so long as the response is properly measured.


Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

In any event ... the Japanese military attacked a military target on December 7, 1941. Their "entire country" was no more behind their war effort than our entire country would become. And our final response to that attack was nuclear annihilation of civilian targets. Go ahead and rationalize that all you please. The depravity of rationalizing a nuclear attack on civilians is disgusting ... but if it will make any of you feel better, go right ahead. And sleep well.


There’s no need to “rationalize” the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan. We can analyze the action from an ethical standpoint and then determine if it was justified or not. It’s a complicated issue (far more complicated than you’re trying to make it), but it is hardly unreasonable to believe that the action accomplished good. To equate the mobilized civilians of the US with the mobilized civilians of Japan during WW2, and then argue that both deserved the same treatment, is disgusting if you ask me. It’s a total lack of ethical judgment whatsoever.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Alright, but my point was that Lincoln went far, far further than Bush has gone.
Yes, and other elements of his time, notably (in this context) slavery, were far beyond the moral issues of today. So while I don't give the practice of slavery a pass, I grant it more leeway in the 1800's than I would today. Lincoln, same story. I cannot equally judge the actions of another era with the morals of our own. Not to say that Lincoln was right, or that slavery wasn't totally and utterly wrong then and now ... but I hope you get my drift that what may have been acceptable yesterday is not so today. Likewise, I hope some terrible things acceptable today are not accepted in the future.


Originally posted by: Tiptup
Under our justice system, non-citizens should not have the same protections as we do (particularly captured enemies). That’s not to say that decency and ethics should not require us to protect their basic rights as human beings, but that foreign threats should not be given the extra protections we enjoy.
Funny, I thought our rights were "inalienable," not granted to us by ANYONE. That's the whole point of the United States of America - - recognition of inalienable rights. And please feel free to point me to anywhere in the law where non-citizens have unequal rights to justice. The Bush administration made-up from whole cloth the notion of "enemy combatants" precisely so they could deny their rights to justice, and deny them the treaty rights under the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court has twice held that the legal limbo in which the "enemy combatants" have been placed is illegal, and the Bush administration has twice refused to comply with the orders of the highest court in the land. Tell me again how we're not sliding towards totalitarianism.


Originally posted by: Tiptup
I also believe that under certain circumstances government should be granted temporary powers to properly execute a war.
And if war is declared to be permanent, what time limit should be placed on these extraordinary powers? Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex that would seek to establish a permanent state of war. What else would you call a war on the never-ending tactic of terrorism?


Originally posted by: Tiptup
Violence can be found almost anywhere. Stars are violent. Light bulbs are violent. Surgery is violent. Life is violent. Violence is unavoidable.

Don't insult both our intelligences. I'm not dissing the violence of birds to insects. If I wasn't crystal clear that I'm disparaging purposeful human acts of violence against other humans, let me be so now.


Originally posted by: Tiptup
If a society launches an unjustified war against another, we can conclude that the violence is evil. If another society then seeks to destroy the society that began the unjustified war, that violent action can be considered justified and good so long as the response is properly measured.

And I would generally agree with that. Hence my point about two nuclear bombs not being a measured response - in my hardly unique view.


Originally posted by: Tiptup
To equate the mobilized civilians of the US with the mobilized civilians of Japan during WW2, and then argue that both deserved the same treatment, is disgusting if you ask me. It’s a total lack of ethical judgment whatsoever.

Hmmm, to what equal treatment do you think I am insisting both societies deserve? I am saying civilians of both societies deserve to be FREE OF ATTACK. That is the equal treatment I support. The Japanese supported their country's war effort, and the Americans supported ours. The Japanese people were no more a legitimate target of war than the American people were.

But are we to presume the Japanese people, once nuked, would think that? Perhaps that is a level of generosity foreign to human nature. But we'd better hope not ... lest humanity's constant eye-for-an- eye cycle leave the world ultimately blinded.



.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Go ahead and rationalize that all you please. The depravity of rationalizing a nuclear attack on civilians is disgusting ... but if it will make any of you feel better, go right ahead. And sleep well.
.



How would you have defeated the Japanese? Over 100,000 American soldiers were killed just taking the islands surrounding Japan in preparation for an invasion. Many hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would have been killed taking the mainland. Would that have been your choice over the bomb? Please don't dance around the question, it is a simple choice.

Our freedom in America can be credited to our successes militarily, and we have never won a war in which we refused to target "innocent" civilians.

HARMY RULES