Is the West really morally superior?

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Funny, but eyewitnesses say different, regarless of what "wiki" says :roll:

Well then bring some quotage!

After all, we know that panicked eyewitnesses are always much more accurate than well researched historians :roll:


During this raid there was a brief, but possibly intense dogfight between American and German fighters around Dresden, some rounds may have struck the ground and been mistaken for strafing fire

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am still waiting for you to define "involvement".

Do you have a point to add already? Or are you just upping your post count?

You never have been the brightest one in here, what is your obsession with asking me this?

Because you made quite a big deal about this point that we got in at the last second to save our economic interest. Usually when ignorants like yourself make a comment like this they want to back the ignorance.

So I am looking for an answer or are you going to rescind your previous idiotic comments?

 

[Lemon law]

Aw shucks-----its always been might makes right------so let not talk about recent events-----lets go back in times. To the real nexus of the mid-east conflict and the very start of Islam.

As much as I despise Pat Robertson he is somewhat correct on one thing-------Islam is somewhat of a robber religion--and here I am not talking about Mohamid himself-----somewhat a Suddartha type who in his lifetime united a small region of Saudia Arabia with wise policies------but his sucessors who took advantage of the fact that the old empires that had governed the regioned were in fact defunct-----so the ignorant arabs rode North in vast hordes giving the conquered lands the choice of convert to Islam or die.---and continued North until they met the more cultered Persians and Turks.
Gathering followers as they went Islam spread East , West, and North subdueing all before it in the remarkably short space of a century of so.--------pushing Islam to borders well in to France, all along North Africa, even parts of Africa, and well up in to Balkins. Also East well in to India----and along the trade routes well into southeast asia.

But one delimiting factor-----many of the conquered lands were desert and unable to sustain great populations.--------but by 1000 AD Islam was the intellectual center of Western culture and religious tolerance----the Europeans were light years behind.-------but numerically more numerous.----with each more or less isolated.

Until a roman pope conceived the bright win win idea for the pope of the crusades to expand the
his power eastward-----with vast hordes of European idiots who promptly attacked largely christian cities on the route to the holy land. The Moslems were properly horrorified at these uncultered barbarians--------but East had met West-----and the Europeans discovered a taste the spices and silks these Arabs had by virtue of being astride the trade routes to the far East.----and the Arab Moslems discovered they were unable to resist the population advantage but could make a very good living off their monopoly of the far East trade routes.--and each of the sucessive crusades met the same end-----the Eurtopean invaders made inroads but were unable to hold on to what they won.

Then the Europeans did something unpredictable-----they invented the long distance sailing ship and at the same time improved their science to far in exccess of what the Arabs had. Ending the Arab monopoly on the trade goods of the far east. And leading towards Christian domination of the entire world.

And Islam has been in a snit ever since-----looking back to a time when they were far more advanced in art, culture, and Science over their Christian counterparts.

Just my take on the matter.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: shira
It's easy to say the the acts of contemporary terrorists are unprecedented, but I find myself wondering if that's true.

In the simplest terms, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups target innocents in order to break the will of the West. To date, Al Qaeda has killed fewer than 5,000 innocents in various terrorist attacks. If Al Qaeda had the means (nuclear weapons and a delivery system, for example), I have no doubt that the number killed would be many, many times that.

But consider some of the more reprehensible actions by the Allies during WWII: Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Dresden was by any standard NOT a valid military target. At the time of the fire-bombing in February, 1945, its only military significance was that wounded German soldiers occupied hospitals there. It contained no military installations (the closest were 60 miles away, and were NOT targeted), there were no military units stationed there, and there were no anti-aircraft batteries. The vast majority of the estimated 1.2 million inhabitants of Dresden were non-combatants. Yet the allies dropped more than 600,000 incendiaries over a period of 14 hours, and an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 perished.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - where at least 120,000 civilians died from the immediate effects of the bombing and many tens of thousands more died of the after-effects in the years that followed - have been justified because they forced Japan to surrender immediately and unconditionally (but note that negotiations were already ongoing as to the terms under which Japan was willing to surrender) and (it is claimed) it might have cost more civilian lives (and certainly more lives of allied soldiers) if the Allies had used conventional bombing (and perhaps an invasion) to break Japan's will.

But whatever justifications are used for Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, how are they really any different from Al Qaeda's? In both cases, civilians were/are targeted in order to hasten a desired military objective. Either it is morally unacceptable to target civilians or it is not. I realize that in its current fight against international terrorism, the West is not targeting civilians, but I think that's primarily because there's no geographically isolated civilian population that can be identified as being the "home" of Al Qaeda.

Videotaped beheadings are horrific, but so is being burned alive. I guess what I'm asking: Are the actions of international terrorists really so outrageous when looked at in a historical context? Does the West really have the moral high ground?

For me personally, it is kinda pointless to look at who did what in deciding who really have the moral high ground. In any type of War, people die and each side uses whatever tactic to win the war or die trying. It doesn't matter if you behead someone, or throws firebomb into a city, both side is trying to win the war.

But I think the important factor in deciding moral high ground is to look at who start the conflicts and who try to end it. During the WW2, it was Japan/Germany who started the conflict, there is no debate about it. So whatever Ally did during the War to win it, I think it is justified. Maybe Dresden/Hiroshima/Nagasaki wasn't necessary, maybe there were better ways, but no one knows for sure, and without Japan/Germany starting the conflict, or if they had surrendered given the chance, none of that would've been necessary.

But today, it is less obvious who started the conflict. Yes it was Al Qaeda who attacked America, many time before America used the millitary to retaliate. But it was also America (or the West) who interfered with the ME/SA politics and sided with either Israel or SA royal for whatever reason. In addition to that, America/the West went into Iraq with a justification that was later found false, therefore is guilty of starting the conflicts that's going on in Iraq.

So IMHO, the West had moral superiority back in the WW2, but not really in today's conflicts.

 

[Steeplerot]

MELTING HUMAN FLESH

Others hiding below ground died. But they died painlessly--they simply glowed bright orange and blue in the darkness. As the heat intensified, they either disintegrated into cinders or melted into a thick liquid--often three or four feet deep in spots.

Shortly after 10:30 on the morning (NOT NIGHT) of February 14, the last raid swept over the city. American bombers pounded the rubble that had been Dresden for a steady 38 minutes. But this attack was not nearly as heavy as the first two.

However, what distinguished this raid was the cold-blooded ruthlessness with which it was carried out. U.S. Mustangs appeared low over the city, strafing anything that moved, including a column of rescue vehicles rushing to the city to evacuate survivors. One assault was aimed at the banks of the Elbe River, where refugees had huddled during the horrible night.

In the last year of the war, Dresden had become a hospital town. During the previous night's massacre, heroic nurses had dragged thousands of crippled patients to the Elbe. The low-flying Mustangs machine-gunned those helpless patients, as well as thousands of old men, women and children who had escaped the city.

When the last plane left the sky, Dresden was a scorched ruin, its blackened streets filled with corpses. The city was spared no horror. A flock of vultures escaped from the zoo and fattened on the carnage. Rats swarmed over the piles of corpses.

A Swiss citizen described his visit to Dresden two weeks after the raid: "I could see torn-off arms and legs, mutilated torsos and heads which had been wrenched from their bodies and rolled away. In places the corpses were still lying so densely that I had to clear a path through them in order not to tread on arms and legs."


****************

Kurt Vonnegut was in Dresden when it was bombed in 1945




Another moment to be proud of for all the cheerleading american taliban.

I am not a pacifist, I just am not raised to be a psycho who tries to explain this type of stuff away. War is not glorious or something to be proud of, you people are one in the same with those who cheered osama for his actions and justify it.

 

[Tab]

Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Russia & Great Britain beat the Nazis. We helped.

The US, China & Great Britain beat the Japanesse. The Russians helped.

Sorry to get off topic here, but had to Canada in there

Following the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, Canada's Parliament supported the government's decision to declare war on Germany on September 10, about one week after the United Kingdom and France. Canadian airmen played an important role in the Battle of Britain, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian merchant marine played a crucial role in the Battle of the Atlantic (1940).

The 1st Canadian Division and tanks of the independent 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade landed on Sicily in July 1943 and after a thirty eight day campaign there, took part in the successful Allied invasion of Italy. Canadian forces played an important role in the long advance north through Italy, eventually coming under their own corps headquarters after Fifth Canadian Armoured Division joined them on the line in early 1944

First Canadian Army fought in two more large campaigns; the Rhineland in February and March 1945, clearing a path to the Rhine River in anticipation of the assault crossing of that obstacle, and the subsequent battles on the far side of the Rhine in the last weeks of the war. The I Canadian Corps returned to Northwest Europe from Italy in early 1945, and as part of a reunited First Canadian Army assisted in the liberation of The Netherlands (including the rescue of many Dutch from near-starvation conditions) and the invasion of Germany itself.

and many many more

The big one-

Of a population just over eleven million, more than one and a half million Canadians served in the Second World War. Of these more than 45,000 gave their lives, and another 55,000 were wounded. Countless others shared the suffering and hardship of war. By the end of the war Canada was the fourth strongest military power in the world behind only the USA, the USSR and Britain.

And we never asked for anything in return

Link

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
MELTING HUMAN FLESH

Others hiding below ground died. But they died painlessly--they simply glowed bright orange and blue in the darkness. As the heat intensified, they either disintegrated into cinders or melted into a thick liquid--often three or four feet deep in spots.

Shortly after 10:30 on the morning (NOT NIGHT) of February 14, the last raid swept over the city. American bombers pounded the rubble that had been Dresden for a steady 38 minutes. But this attack was not nearly as heavy as the first two.

However, what distinguished this raid was the cold-blooded ruthlessness with which it was carried out. U.S. Mustangs appeared low over the city, strafing anything that moved, including a column of rescue vehicles rushing to the city to evacuate survivors. One assault was aimed at the banks of the Elbe River, where refugees had huddled during the horrible night.

In the last year of the war, Dresden had become a hospital town. During the previous night's massacre, heroic nurses had dragged thousands of crippled patients to the Elbe. The low-flying Mustangs machine-gunned those helpless patients, as well as thousands of old men, women and children who had escaped the city.

When the last plane left the sky, Dresden was a scorched ruin, its blackened streets filled with corpses. The city was spared no horror. A flock of vultures escaped from the zoo and fattened on the carnage. Rats swarmed over the piles of corpses.

A Swiss citizen described his visit to Dresden two weeks after the raid: "I could see torn-off arms and legs, mutilated torsos and heads which had been wrenched from their bodies and rolled away. In places the corpses were still lying so densely that I had to clear a path through them in order not to tread on arms and legs."


****************

Kurt Vonnegut was in Dresden when it was bombed in 1945

1) I don't think that that piece of article you pasted are Vonnegut's words.

BTW: It is customary to cite your source - http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

Also, a brief look at that site just screams impartiality yet you denigrate the cited wiki entry that disagrees. Amazing.

2) Most historians reject the massively inflated death count he uses as Nazi and later Soviet propoganda. Current estimates range from 35K to 60K, IIRC.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

They are too wrapped up in gi joe stories of heroism and the manly carnage to care about history.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

This is why I love P&N.

Disagree with any left leaning member and get instantly labeled a neo-con.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

This is why I love P&N.

Disagree with any left leaning member and get instantly labeled a neo-con.

Well, if it walks like a duck.....

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

This is why I love P&N.

Disagree with any left leaning member and get instantly labeled a neo-con.

Sorta like many on the right label any American who disagrees with aggressive American foreign policy as 'unAmerican', 'unpatriotic', 'pacifist', 'terrorist sympathizer', 'America-hater', 'Blame America First Crowd' et al.

It's silly and childish but most of us in this forum resort to it occasionally.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

This is why I love P&N.

Disagree with any left leaning member and get instantly labeled a neo-con.

Well, if it walks like a duck.....

Apparently every single person, without exception AFAIK, who disagrees with you is a duck.

You need to have your eyes and ears checked.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

This is why I love P&N.

Disagree with any left leaning member and get instantly labeled a neo-con.

Well, if it walks like a duck.....

Apparently every single person, without exception AFAIK, who disagrees with you is a duck.

You need to have your eyes and ears checked.

I think the same thing about your heads and that black withered thing you refer to as a heart if it makes you feel better.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

This is why I love P&N.

Disagree with any left leaning member and get instantly labeled a neo-con.

Sorta like many on the right label any American who disagrees with aggsressive American foreign policy as 'unAmerican', 'unpatriotic', 'pacifist', 'terrorist sympathizer', 'America-hater', 'Blame America First Crowd' et al.

It's silly and childish but most of us in this forum resort to it occasionally.

Exactly.

Coming from either side it is hardly conducive to a rational debate.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

Oh here comes Tab the resident WW2 expert. Well, Tab you go ahead and tell us how it really was then. Tell us what we're stating as wrong...I'm sure you've ready to be the next Ambrose here aren't you (oh wait he's probably FOS in your book)? You old enough to drink yet?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

This is why I love P&N.

Disagree with any left leaning member and get instantly labeled a neo-con.

Sorta like many on the right label any American who disagrees with aggsressive American foreign policy as 'unAmerican', 'unpatriotic', 'pacifist', 'terrorist sympathizer', 'America-hater', 'Blame America First Crowd' et al.

It's silly and childish but most of us in this forum resort to it occasionally.

Exactly.

Coming from either side it is hardly conducive to a rational debate.

Indeed.

 

[alchemize]

I also find it quite interesting that the OP decides to quote Goebbels figures for deaths rather than historically agreed upon

 

[Orignal Earl]

I think this point in the wikki article is telling

The Nazis made use of Dresden in their propaganda efforts and promised swift retaliation. The Soviets also made propaganda use of the Dresden bombing in the early years of the Cold War to alienate the East Germans from the Americans and British.

Bombing of Dresden in World War II

 

[deepred98]

stfu

your crossing the line

nagasaki and WWII can in no way be compared to terrorism

first off, WWII was a two sided war and terrorism is religious fanatics strapping bombs on themselves

second, (this may be biased cuz i'm chinese) japan commited many crimes that justified the use of nuclear weapons against them

 

[deepred98]

hmm just read the rest of the thread

guess that rant was sorto off topic

sorry

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

This is why I love P&N.

Disagree with any left leaning member and get instantly labeled a neo-con.

Well you're not a conservative since most were against involvement in WWII at all until Democrat FDR tricked the country into war. Neocons in general never saw a war they did'nt like.. Holbroke belongs to this group too.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone find it entertaing the neo-conservative members of the board are defending the bombing of dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Shows what group knows about World War II History, it's not much.

This is why I love P&N.

Disagree with any left leaning member and get instantly labeled a neo-con.

Well you're not a conservative since most were against involvement in WWII at all until Democrat FDR tricked the country into war. Neocons in general never saw a war they did'nt like.. Holbroke belongs to this group too.

I think strict isolationism was impossible then and even moreso now.

As far as wars I don't like Vietnam and Iraq 2 quickly come to mind.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: techs
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were complety justified and I firmly believed it saved more lives than it cost.
Dresden was also justified in that when you're enemy is bombing your civilians you have the right to bomb theirs.

You are merely stating justifications for targeting civilians. Al Qaeda could make a similar claim.

Also, Germany NEVER targeted civilians on a scale anything like Dresden. The comparison usually made is Germany's culpability in bombing Coventry. But the number of civilians killed in Coventry was something like 350, and that number was for the ENTIRE war, as compared with the hundreds of thousands killed in Dresden in 14 hours. Also, Conventry was by any standard a legitimate military target (it contained munitions factories)

You love to ignore historical facts, don't you?

The millions of Russians that the Germans murdered were not civilians? Go to the various Russian cities and tell those people that. Were the Jews that were murdered not civilians?

Dresden was necessary and so was Hiroshima. We needed to stop Germany and Japan from killing even more people. In fact, these two cases ended up saving more lives.

Go on and continue to praise Hitler.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: rchiu

So IMHO, the West had moral superiority back in the WW2, but not really in today's conflicts.

That's essentially my opinion, too.