Is the West really morally superior?

[shira]

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

Goebbels? I just searched several sites, and picked a range that seemed representative. But you're right. In checking some more, my Dresden figures were way too high. However, my Hiroshima/Nagasaki figures were too low. Here is a site that seems pretty conscientious:

Civilian deaths in WW II

Dresden: At least 60,000

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Approximately 177,000.

I've updated my original post.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: shira

Civilian deaths in WW II

I pray none of us are alive to see WW III.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: raildogg

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.

Heh the first statement is very ironic when you say people are cheering on hitler.

You might as well be saying,

Extermination of the jews was necessary and so was gulags. We needed to stop poland and commies from killing even more people. In fact, these two cases ended up saving more lives.

right wingers never change do they? birds of a feather herr RD

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: raildogg

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.

Heh the first statement is very ironic when you say people are cheering on hitler.

You might as well be saying,

Extermination of the jews was necessary and so was gulags. We needed to stop poland and commies from killing even more people. In fact, these two cases ended up saving more lives.

right wingers never change do they? birds of a feather herr RD

You pay taxes?

 

[sandorski]

OP makes an interesting point that most have ignored. Though I don't think doing a number vs number comparison really fits, it does provide some context in which to draw a conclusion from. That conclusion, IMO, is that Al Queda is a nuisance and not the dire threat it has been made out to be. That said, it is a nuisance with a very possible chance of becoming a Threat and as such should be dismantled ASAP.

 

[Tab]

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.

Okay, so it's a bit of a generalization? What's wrong with the Neo-Conservative label? I'll admit, I do fall into the "liberal" catagory concerning a number of issuses.

While I do disagree with many about the issuses we are discussing that's not the reason why they fall into the "Neo-Conservative" catagory.

Personally, I would agree the Shira. America often proclaims its' moral superority over the rest of the world, but that's not exactly the case. In High School we're tought that the reason for the Civil War was the issuse of slavery and the reason for World War II was the Jewish Prison Camps. Eventually, we found out these reasons aren't true. So much for our moral superority huh?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Tab

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.

Okay, so it's a bit of a generalization? What's wrong with the Neo-Conservative label? I'll admit, I do fall into the "liberal" catagory concerning a number of issuses.

While I do disagree with many about the issuses we are discussing that's not the reason why they fall into the "Neo-Conservative" catagory.

Personally, I would agree the Shira. America often proclaims its' moral superority over the rest of the world, but that's not exactly the case. In High School we're tought that the reason for the Civil War was the issuse of slavery and the reason for World War II was the Jewish Prison Camps. Eventually, we found out these reasons aren't true. So much for our moral superority huh?

I never said anything was wrong with the label other than it being used as a derogatory term on this forum and it also being misapplied in this case.

We were debating the facts of the incidents and the resons behind them.

Does America have parts of history not to be very proud of? Certainly. Do Dresden and the atomic bombings rank very high on that list? I don't think so.
Treatment of Native Americans, slavery, and many others outrank them IMO.

As far as education goes about history I also agree that it is sorely lacking, though that seems to be a common theme many places in the world.
Also, Slavery was a cause of the Civil War, just not the only one. I was taught about the events leading up to the Japanese attack in HS and the reasons for it (yay for AP American History).

 

[imported_newbert]

Lat time I checked female circumcision was frowned upon in the west. Last time I looked women could vote here. Last time I looked It wasnt legal kill homosexuals here.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: newbert
Lat time I checked female circumcision was frowned upon in the west. Last time I looked wome could vote here. Lat time I looked It wasnt legal kille homosexuals here.

That's all it takes?

 

[imported_newbert]

You tell me. And try to live in the present. Not 60 years ago.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: sandorski
OP makes an interesting point that most have ignored. Though I don't think doing a number vs number comparison really fits, it does provide some context in which to draw a conclusion from. That conclusion, IMO, is that Al Queda is a nuisance and not the dire threat it has been made out to be. That said, it is a nuisance with a very possible chance of becoming a Threat and as such should be dismantled ASAP.

They are a great threat as is because they can get their hands on WMDs in a short period of time. When you have Islamic countries with WMDs already, that puts the world at a greater danger. But its good to see some of my fellow leftists disagree with the mainstream crap thats being said around here.

As for the West being morally superior, in today's times, yes. We are ahead of other countries by centuries in terms of treatment of humans. The West these days stands for good while other places represent mostly bad.

Keep in mind that we live in an imperfect world and will always live in an imperfect world. When you people who always seem to blame everything on America or even the West realize that, you will come to your senses. Compared with other parts of the world, we are morally superior. (In the 21st century)

 

[Red Dawn]

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.....

You tell 'em Daffy.

Funny but I never considered myself a Neocon, leave it to some of the whacko left wing extremists to label me as such.

Some of you idiots make it sound as if WW2 should have been some kind of humanitarian exercise insterd of a battle for survival of our way of life. It's nothing like George and Dick's "Excellent Adventure" in Iraq.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: dahunan
I guess you would be happier with either the Japanese or the Nazis running the show?

So your argument is that it's acceptable to target civilians to win a war, correct?

Edit:
Note also: It was abundantly clear at the time of Dresden that Germany was a defeated country. And it was abundantly clear at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan was a defeated country. So your question is actually without basis.

You might try telling that the german and japanese armies that were still battling hard at that point. Unfortatly in 1940s we have very little ability to accuratly hit targets with bombs, this resulted in significant civilian deaths in the attempt to destroy military targets. I really think you need to brush up on your history and technology of the time.

 

[fierydemise]

I'm of two minds on this, on one hand I understand reprehensible things happen in war and are sometimes justified by the situation on the other hand I don't like defending actions that resulted in the death of tens of thousands of innocents. On the three incidents mentioned by the OP I have very little problem with the atomic bombs, My Grandfather was stationed in the Aleutians and would have been one of the soldiers who participated in the invasion of Japan and likely would have died, had that happened I wouldn't be here. Dresden is a little more difficult, in hindsight it doesn't look justifiable but at the time it may have seemed perfectly right, if intelligence indicated that Dresden contained multiple military targets then the bombing would have been a very simple choice for a commander.

 

[maluckey]

I don't get where anyone can be morally superior given that cultural differences exist.

One culture is ALWAYS disdainful of another if their views aren't similar to the nth degree. Anyone that personally claims the moral highground AND commits genocide is NOT morally superior. By the same token, a culture that opresses it's own citizens, and systematically demonizes outsiders and those not of the same religion cannot be considered morally superior.

These two examples eliminate most all nations. Only nations without much to lose or gain can claim to not having taken to low blows from time to time.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: shira
Hiroshima and Nagasaki - where approximately 175,000 civilians died - 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)

That's just a flat-out untruth. What evidence do you have of negotiations between the U.S. and/or Britian and Japan prior to the dropping of atomic bombs?

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.

Might have? It's abundantly clear, based on the death tolls from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, that the Japanese would've fought to the last man, woman, and child, and any invasion of mainland Japan would've been brutal and bloody. Allied planners were expecting over a million casualities from all sides. By ending the war before such an invasion, the bombings clearly saved lives. More importantly, the Japanese rice crop had failed that year, and the American naval blockade was sucessful enough that mass food imports would've been impossible. Japan was facing mass starvation (rationing had already reduced food intake to ~1300 calories/day) in the winter of 1945-46; luckily, the Allies became occupiers that fall and provided millions of tons of relief supplies.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm not aware of the options re: Dresden but from what I've read re: the US's use of atomic bombs in Japan, it wasn't necessary as Japan was nearing the point of voluntarily surrendering. Seems like using the bombs was more of a point to be made to Russia.

Nearing the point? What does that mean? What evidence did the U.S. have that the Japanese were considering surrender?

I think the definitive book on this subject is "Downfall" by Richard Frank. The research is exhaustive (which is why he publishes so infrequently), and I've never seen a better picture of the situation at the time. I recommend it to all.

 

[Mursilis]

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 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.

But some people don't. You'd do best to respond to those who post with respect, and ignore the ones who wallow in name-calling. Just create a mental "No response needed" list and stick to that. It's not like people on that list are open to learning anything anyway.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Tab
In High School we're tought that the reason for the Civil War was the issuse of slavery and the reason for World War II was the Jewish Prison Camps. Eventually, we found out these reasons aren't true. So much for our moral superority huh?

You should talk to your school board. I was never taught that simplistic silliness, and I attended public schools K through post-college degree.

 

[maluckey]

You should talk to your school board. I was never taught that simplistic silliness, and I attended public schools K through post-college degree.

Same here, I wasn't taught such drivel. Either Tab wasn't listening, or his school sucked big ones.

 

[Genx87]

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????

Dresden I am not going to defend but the bombing of Japan I will. It saved millions of lives and if you dont believe that, I would consider learning a little bit more on the subject.

 

[Genx87]

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

Like I said in another thread, it is hilarious when communists quote nazis to backup their theories.

And I see old Steeplerot failed to answer my question regarding involvement in WWII for the United States. Ill chalk that one up to a big old foot in his mouth.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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????

Dresden I am not going to defend but the bombing of Japan I will. It saved millions of lives and if you dont believe that, I would consider learning a little bit more on the subject.

You knew it would have saved millions of lives? How? Can you see the future? There were other targets, that didn't have a civilian presence. Go read Trumans' memiors on the subject.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

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????

Dresden I am not going to defend but the bombing of Japan I will. It saved millions of lives and if you dont believe that, I would consider learning a little bit more on the subject.

You knew it would have saved millions of lives? How? Can you see the future? There were other targets, that didn't have a civilian presence. Go read Trumans' memiors on the subject.

If we dont drop the bombs, the war drags on into the Summer of 46. That is 9+ months more of war. That is 9+ months more of firebombing Japanese civilian centers. That is 9+ months more of brutal fighting like we saw on Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

You tell me, how do you figure ending the war early didnt save more lives? Are you expecting the invasion of the home islands to cost less than ~200,000 lives?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: newbert
You tell me. And try to live in the present. Not 60 years ago.

I live in the Present as do we all, but the Past can't be forgoten for the sake of convenience.

Since you put the ball back in my court: No, those points you made are totally irrelevant to the discussion. The OP made a valid comparison: Violent Action vs Violent Action. "Ours" vs "Theirs".