• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anyone who claims to have a set of morals, read this.

N

notfred

Lifer
I was just reading the thread on pirating satelite TV, and I started thinking. How many of you people who said "you know that getting the TV service without paying is morally wrong" would support your coutry spying on other countries, and stealing thier secrets? Remember when China tried to steal our airplane a few months back? I didn't hear anyone complain about how we were stealing top secret chinese information. Do morals only apply to individuals and not to natinos then?

How about all the people who've taken the American flag and displayed it on thier house or car. IT symbolizes freedom, right? If you really beleive in freedom, how come you're saying you'd punch people in the face for expressing thier beleifs (regarding peace activists in the US)?

Would you support putting people in the electric chair with no trial? no? then how come all the talk about turning palestine/afghanistan/iraq/pakistan/wherever into a giant smoldering crater? (remeber people saying that palestinians deserved to die for cheering when the twin towers collapsed?)

Are your morals only applicable when it suits you? Can you jsut toss them aside when it's inconvenient? Really, there's a lot of people in this country and on this board with these viewpoints, and I find it disturbing. I agree that not everyone id going to have the exact same moral standards, but I don't see how anyone can expect to earn any respect from anyone when thier morals change depending on who's being affected by them.

anyway, I expect to get flamed, but I wanted to say that...
 
Mmm...did you ever see the study that showed that in most situations, our emotions decided for us and *not* our morals? I thought it was some interesting pop
 
Well, I'd beleive the emotion thing, but I dont think that basing your actions on an emotional response is usually a good thing.
 


<< I was just reading the thread on pirating satelite TV, and I started thinking. How many of you people who said "you know that getting the TV service without paying is morally wrong" would support your coutry spying on other countries, and stealing thier secrets? Remember when China tried to steal our airplane a few months back? I didn't hear anyone complain about how we were stealing top secret chinese information. Do morals only apply to individuals and not to natinos then?

How about all the people who've taken the American flag and displayed it on thier house or car. IT symbolizes freedom, right? If you really beleive in freedom, how come you're saying you'd punch people in the face for expressing thier beleifs (regarding peace activists in the US)?

Would you support putting people in the electric chair with no trial? no? then how come all the talk about turning palestine/afghanistan/iraq/pakistan/wherever into a giant smoldering crater? (remeber people saying that palestinians deserved to die for cheering when the twin towers collapsed?)

Are your morals only applicable when it suits you? Can you jsut toss them aside when it's inconvenient? Really, there's a lot of people in this country and on this board with these viewpoints, and I find it disturbing. I agree that not everyone id going to have the exact same moral standards, but I don't see how anyone can expect to earn any respect from anyone when thier morals change depending on who's being affected by them.

anyway, I expect to get flamed, but I wanted to say that...
>>


Woah now, time to get off your high horse and get a clue. As far as I was concerned China could keep the plane, most information on it was probably destroyed, it was the lives of the people that were important to me. China denied them the right to land in their territory, knowing that if they did not, these people would die. Is that really such a moral thing to do?

I never said I wanted to punch someone in the face for their beliefs, I don't, only an idiot would do that.

I don't believe in turning Afghanistan into a smoldering crater, on the dwellings of those responsible. No innocent human being should die in retribution for the attacks on the WTC, that would make the US no better than the terrorists. The ones who commit those acts though, they deserve to burn in hell, the sooner the better.

My morals apply to all of my philosophies in my daily life, and unlike you I don't pretend I'm better than someone else by judging them as a whole based on what a few individuals from their country say. Now does that make me a better person than you? No, but it makes me a lot more likeable.
 
notfred, you missed one point.

Americans deplore the intentional targeting of civilians by terrorists, yet supported the intentional targeting of civilians by the US during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two bombings resulted in the deaths of more than 200,000 Japanese men, women, and children. Remember, when talking about the actions of others, the US has no high moral ground to speak from.

Jesus...200,000...that makes me sick to my stomach. How could that be justified in any war?
 


<< Woah now, time to get off your high horse and get a clue. As far as I was concerned China could keep the plane, most information on it was probably destroyed, it was the lives of the people that were important to me. China denied them the right to land in their territory, knowing that if they did not, these people would die. Is that really such a moral thing to do?

I never said I wanted to punch someone in the face for their beliefs, I don't, only an idiot would do that.

I don't believe in turning Afghanistan into a smoldering crater, on the dwellings of those responsible. No innocent human being should die in retribution for the attacks on the WTC, that would make the US no better than the terrorists. The ones who commit those acts though, they deserve to burn in hell, the sooner the better.

My morals apply to all of my philosophies in my daily life, and unlike you I don't pretend I'm better than someone else by judging them as a whole based on what a few individuals from their country say. Now does that make me a better person than you? No, but it makes me a lot more likeable. >>




I never said anything about you, or anyone else, I jsut said that "many" people seemed to act that way, not "ALL" people. There's an important distinction between the two. Don't take offense, as the post obviusly (based on what you say your beleifs are) wasn't directed towards you.
 


<< notfred, you missed one point.

Americans deplore the intentional targeting of civilians by terrorists, yet supported the intentional targeting of civilians by the US during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two bombings resulted in the deaths of more than 200,000 Japanese men, women, and children. Remember, when talking about the actions of others, the US has no high moral ground to speak from.

Jesus...200,000...that makes me sick to my stomach. How could that be justified in any war? >>


You're kidding right? Ending WW2 without use of the atomic bomb would've cost far more than 200,000 lives. A ground war in Japan would've dragged on for years and innocent people would've died, even if their deaths were not intentional. The Japanese government refused to surrender and there was no other alternative to end the war. The dropping of nuclear weapons was NOT by any means a good thing, but it was a lot better than the alternatives.
 


<< I never said anything about you, or anyone else, I jsut said that "many" people seemed to act that way, not "ALL" people. There's an important distinction between the two. Don't take offense, as the post obviusly (based on what you say your beleifs are) wasn't directed towards you. >>


Those with the biggest mouths often have the smallest brains. Just because they are more outspoken than many people on the board does not mean they are the majority or represent the opinions of more than a small percentage of Americans. There are some people here who have those opinions, and they tend to post a lot, that doesn't mean there are many of them.

Anyway, being Americans they are free to be as hypocritcal or ignorant as they want, no use judging someone when it only makes them more firm in their beliefs. Is you post meant to change minds? To me it seems likes its aiming to provoke insults and flames. Looking down on someone is rarely a good way of changing their mind and judging someone accomplishes nothing more than a slight ego boost for yourself.
 


<< You're kidding right? Ending WW2 without use of the atomic bomb would've cost far more than 200,000 lives. A ground war in Japan would've dragged on for years and innocent people would've died, even if their deaths were not intentional. The Japanese government refused to surrender and there was no other alternative to end the war. The dropping of nuclear weapons was NOT by any means a good thing, but it was a lot better than the alternatives. >>



Okay, so you're saying that in any war, we should nuke a large quantity of civilians in the enemy nation until their government surrenders? Skip armed combat completely; if we want them to surrender, target #1 should be civilians? Because that's how you're justifying this, and you somehow have some psychic ability to predict that a ground war with Japan would have cost more lives.

Well honestly, I don't think a traditional ground war would've killed more than 200,000 people, and it definitely wouldn't have killed anywhere near 200,000 innocent civilians had we chose a ground war.
 
target #1 was not civilians
there were military installations and war industry in both cities
nagasaki wasn't even the primary target for the mission, it was the secondary after two bomb runs over the primary could not be completed because the target area was covered in smoke, fog, or clouds.

traditional ground war against the japanese islands was estimated at the time to cost hundreds of thousands of US soldiers lives, and many more japanese. even children were being trained to use pikes. regardless of what spin you want to put on it, you can't change those facts.

so when it was decided to use atomic bombs don't think that it was an easy decision without regard to how many civilians would be killed.
 


<< notfred, you missed one point.

Americans deplore the intentional targeting of civilians by terrorists, yet supported the intentional targeting of civilians by the US during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two bombings resulted in the deaths of more than 200,000 Japanese men, women, and children. Remember, when talking about the actions of others, the US has no high moral ground to speak from.

Jesus...200,000...that makes me sick to my stomach. How could that be justified in any war? >>



Because you don't know history...

Sigh...

We saved millions of lives by killing 200,000... Would you prefer they had not been killed so 2,000,000 would die 3 months later?

Jason
 


<<

<< You're kidding right? Ending WW2 without use of the atomic bomb would've cost far more than 200,000 lives. A ground war in Japan would've dragged on for years and innocent people would've died, even if their deaths were not intentional. The Japanese government refused to surrender and there was no other alternative to end the war. The dropping of nuclear weapons was NOT by any means a good thing, but it was a lot better than the alternatives. >>



Okay, so you're saying that in any war, we should nuke a large quantity of civilians in the enemy nation until their government surrenders? Skip armed combat completely; if we want them to surrender, target #1 should be civilians? Because that's how you're justifying this, and you somehow have some psychic ability to predict that a ground war with Japan would have cost more lives.

Well honestly, I don't think a traditional ground war would've killed more than 200,000 people, and it definitely wouldn't have killed anywhere near 200,000 innocent civilians had we chose a ground war. >>




I could go on and on and on, but what is the use? You don't have a clue. 🙁
 
Is it morally wrong to spy...

Hmm... Are you stealing information that doesn't belong to you? Yep...
Hmm... Are you viewing information that you isn't yours? Yep...
Hmm... Are you doing it for peace or war?

Now that is the interesting point...

Lets say by spying we could have found out about the 9/11 attacks and stopped them, and thus saved 7,000 lives...

Would it not then be immoral to NOT spy?

Interesting question, and in this case, the answer is, "it depends".

That being said, the theft of service of TV is NOT the same thing, that is pureselfishness, doesn't benifit anyone but the person doing the stealing, and hurts the rest of us in the long run...

Jason
 
If those people support their government war efforts, then they are not truely innocent as you claim. All lives on both side are fair games. In this case, the US have a "bigger" gun and choose to use it.
 
Wow, where can I get a crystal ball like the one Siva and jehh have?

Because I'd love to know how the US predicted killing all those civilians was a better solution.

C'mon guys, predict something for me now. Would nuking a population center in Afghanistan and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians be soooooo much better than fighting a ground war?

No, I don't think our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified then, nor are they justified now. Imagine any country in the world doing the same thing nowadays, and they would be condemned by the entire rational world.

My rants don't change history, but merely criticize historical thinking.
 


<< Okay, so you're saying that in any war, we should nuke a large quantity of civilians in the enemy nation until their government surrenders? Skip armed combat completely; if we want them to surrender, target #1 should be civilians? Because that's how you're justifying this, and you somehow have some psychic ability to predict that a ground war with Japan would have cost more lives.

Well honestly, I don't think a traditional ground war would've killed more than 200,000 people, and it definitely wouldn't have killed anywhere near 200,000 innocent civilians had we chose a ground war. >>



Are you REALLY that stupid? 😀

We would have lost about 500,000 troops just taking the smallest of the Jap islands which was defending by 9 million people... They were training 6 year old girls to strap bombs to themselves and run into a group of GI's and blow themselves up...

There were 125 million people in Japan at the time, millions would have died, most of them civilians... Worst case... we would have had 50 to 1 kill rates, and still lost 1 to 2 million troops... They would have lost perhaps 50 million to 75 million people, fighting to the last...

On Okinawa, they had 93,000 defenders on the island, including about 10,000 civilians. Once we took it, 5,300 GI's lay dead, about 15,000 were injured...

Only 3 Japinese were taking captive... 3... out of 93,000 defenders... Whole villiages commited suscide rather than be taken alive, including troops who ran out of ammo...

Sigh...

Jason
 
And Sepen, just answer one question for my curiosity.

If the US nuked an enemy population center tomorrow, and justified it by the same means we justified our bombings in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, do you think a majority of the world's leaders would condemn or support the US action?
 


<< Wow, where can I get a crystal ball like the one Siva and jehh have?

Because I'd love to know how the US predicted killing all those civilians was a better solution.

C'mon guys, predict something for me now. Would nuking a population center in Afghanistan and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians be soooooo much better than fighting a ground war?

No, I don't think our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified then, nor are they justified now. Imagine any country in the world doing the same thing nowadays, and they would be condemned by the entire rational world.

My rants don't change history, but merely criticize historical thinking. >>



Because we have studied history and you have not...

We are right and you are wrong, the facts are on our side, and the points have been made in my other replies...

Using the atomic bomb at the time was the only right choice... Using it today would not be... Using it then solved a serious problem, how to prevent millions of deaths... Using it today would just cause lots of deaths...

55 million people died in WWII, the 200,000 deaths from the pair of atomic bombs was just a footnote...

Jason
 


<< Okay, so you're saying that in any war, we should nuke a large quantity of civilians in the enemy nation until their government surrenders? Skip armed combat completely; if we want them to surrender, target #1 should be civilians? Because that's how you're justifying this, and you somehow have some psychic ability to predict that a ground war with Japan would have cost more lives.

Well honestly, I don't think a traditional ground war would've killed more than 200,000 people, and it definitely wouldn't have killed anywhere near 200,000 innocent civilians had we chose a ground war. >>



With all due respect, I sincerely doubt you know what you're talking about.

Where you alive during WWII? Do you have the faintest clue as to what was at stake?

Try that logic on a Pearl Harbor Vet, or a Bhutan Death March Vet, or the Russian WWII vet, or the Chinese & Koreans who lost hundreds of thousands at the hands of an aggressive expansionist Japan. America waged it's defense during 3 and 1/2 years of bloody combat in the Pacific, with Japan resorting to suicide bombing, with no end in sight.

Japan was openly warned. Repeatedly. Even after Hiroshima, Japan still would not relent.
 


<< And Sepen, just answer one question for my curiosity.

If the US nuked an enemy population center tomorrow, and justified it by the same means we justified our bombings in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, do you think a majority of the world's leaders would condemn or support the US action? >>



Nope, because we're not trying to invade...

The only case here for the use of a nuclear weapon would be if a WMD was used against America... Then the world would give us a free card to use nuclear weapons against a number of targets...

Jason
 


<< Wow, where can I get a crystal ball like the one Siva and jehh have?

Because I'd love to know how the US predicted killing all those civilians was a better solution.

C'mon guys, predict something for me now. Would nuking a population center in Afghanistan and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians be soooooo much better than fighting a ground war?

No, I don't think our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified then, nor are they justified now. Imagine any country in the world doing the same thing nowadays, and they would be condemned by the entire rational world.

My rants don't change history, but merely criticize historical thinking. >>


No your rants merely display your ignorance. The US and Japanese were well matched when it came to military technology for the time, it would've been a horribly bloody fight for the US to invade the islands of Japan. The Japanese would never have surrendered, it goes against their way of life (ever heard of kamikazes?). They had the mountains and the knowledge of the land to their advantage, as well as millions of people, but the US had enough resources to eventually wear down the Japanese defense. It would've come at an incredible loss of life on both sides, the Japanese wouldn't have just rolled over and let us take their country. Dropping atomic weapons was an evil deed, but a necissary one.

Oh and Afgahnistan is an altogether different situation, you can't go comparing two completely different things to make a point. They don't have a massive military, or millions of people behind them. At most the US will be attacking some Taliban installations and terrorist camps, not an all out ground war against the entire country. This is not a war that will result in massive casualties (at least not yet).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top