Forum - View topicNEWS: Politically-charged Manga Suspended in Japan
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gezeo750
 Posts: 4 Location: New Orleans, LA, USA |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ouch! That hurt. Please don't generalize Americans because of one person.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Haiseikoh 1973
 Posts: 1590 Location: Waiting for the Japanese 1000 Gunieas. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Too late. And i'm kinda surprised nobody has drawn MacArthur into this debate. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You didn't read my post carefully, did you? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dejiko
 Posts: 276 Location: Holland (between Great Britain and Germany) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apartheid is a Dutch word, because South Africa was colonised by the Dutch and English from the 17th century onwards. The idea of Holland paying reparations for apartheid makes as much sense as expecting England paying the native Americans, because a lot of immigrants came originally from the UK. Last year, the South African government announced it would pay 660 million rand (85 million US dollars) to about 22,000 people who were tortured, detained, or lost family members under apartheid rule. A little o/t, but we still happen to have a group of Dutch 'comfort women' waiting for a formal Japanese apology. No payments, just a sincere token of acknowledgement. The overall impression here is that Japan is just stretching the matter (i.e.: waiting for them to die) and be done with it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mlund
Posts: 60 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You had me up until that last post, Abunai. I agree with moral standards, and I appreciate the fact that you aren't dimissive about the effects of duress and survival.
We should keep in mind that aggression and self-defense weighs heavily into how we judge violent actions. They don't happen in a vacuum. If you kill a man because you want his wallet, it is a dispicable murder. If you kill a man because he's about to blow up a busload of school children for kicks, it is a heroic act. Both actions are killing another human. It something we general recognize as an evil, but in some cases we are left with no better alternatives - such as the situation where the only other alternative is to allow many innocents to die to spare the life of their killer. War is not "civilized" no matter how we dress it up. Modern warfare is even less civilized. Yet nations and groups continue to create situations where war is often the only viable alternative to the bastardized version of "peace" offered by the aggressor - such as submitting to Hitler's notion of "peace" and "progress" in Europe. Once war is joined, the likelihood of atrocities occurring approaches 1. This is no excuse to avoid any conscienable effort to avoid unnecessary atrocities, but never forget that war boils down to the unhappy practice of playing God - deciding that who should live and who should die. There is no "clean" way of navigating a war, and we still as a race find ourselves thrust into situations with no positive alternatives. Avoidance and neutrality are often just as morally damning as participation. It does the world little good to sit with one's thumb up one's ass while Nazis or Stalinists conquere other nations and gas other people just because one finds the notion doing what it takes to stop those atrocities as an atrocity in itself. It is reprehensible to cling to "peace and prosperity" when it is bought at the price of watching your neighbors be murdered. So there we sit with the ugly task of attempting ethical algebra. Is this tactic morally acceptable if it saves these other people from enslavement and genocide? Is refusing to use an inhumane weapon and letting millions more die the "right" moral decision? We've ventured into the messy business of trying to develop metrics for life, death, and freedom - equations for necessity and motive. And what are the alternatives? Scripture? Dogma? Gut instincts? Complete Ammorality? Apathy? Consensus? We should judge atrocities against our fellow man, both large scale and small scale, based not only on the means of action, but on the motives of such actions. What were the motives behind the campaign in which the Rape of Nanking happened? What were the motives behind the Allies campaign against Hitler? If we deem each of these as merely "atrocities," we're ignoring the greater moral depth that differentiates these actions. That's like simply labeling both a robbery-motivated murder and an act of self-defense as "killings."
It would be rather depressing to see all that intellectual capital of history, logic, and ethics you've poured into this discussion thrown out the window due to adversarial behavior and hypocrisy. - Marty Lund Last edited by mlund on Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10474 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This part went too far. Temp Ban. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
fractured78
Posts: 13 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well said mlund. I was avoiding a reply because I felt it was mostly off topic. You, somehow, were able to both reply and keep it on topic too...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
 Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hmm. Did I now...? I'm curious - was the point where I "lost" you the following quote?
If it was, then I challenge you to parse that sentence again. In previous discussions, I've made it clear that I consider that GATSU is only a few steps away from being what I consider morally bankrupt. I've also made it clear that I don't believe the United States has an impeccable record on the subject of atrocities - a position I don't need to defend, since ample historical evidence is registered in its favour. Tell me, what is wrong with my expressing a pious hope that the average American has a higher moral standard than GATSU? And moreover, what is wrong with my expressing a pessimistic doubt (in light of atrocities previously revealed and currently in the process of being revealed) that such is the case? Be honest... did I "lose" you because of a knee-jerk patriotic reflex?
True - but that is, I'm afraid, a straw man argument. If you really want to compare that school bus situation to something like the firebombing of Dresden, then you should ask: if a man is about to blow up a busload of school children, is it all right to hold his wife and children hostage, threatening to kill them, if he follows through on his plan? You see, the thing about Dresden is that it was an atrocity. Yet, despite being an action which is quite clearly evil - the bombing of civilians - its perpetrators justified it by words like "self-defense", "retribution" and by reference to the enemy's atrocities. I made it clear earlier that I do not consider it at all permissible to justify atrocities - and the fact that the other side commits an atrocity is no justification. Yes, it's all right to kill our hypothetical schoolbus mass murderer, to stop him - but you leave his family alone. Yes, it's all right to bomb enemy military sites - but you don't bomb civilians.
That is correct - but these idealised situations do not match up with the reality of atrocities. The Dresden bombing raid was not targeted at combatants. It had one objective, and that was to terrorize and demoralize the enemy. Arthur Harris knew this quite well, when he planned the raid. Earlier, I referred to eyewitness accounts of his remark: "We'll Copenhagen them." He knew perfectly well that the sole objective was to bring the enemy to his knees by striking at wives and children. What kind of war is that? Answer: Not my kind. Anyone who makes war like that has given up all claim to humanity.
You argue beautifully, yet it seems to me that you are engaged in the same argument that I earlier declined to accept from GATSU, namely that there are degrees of atrocities. That there can be a "lesser" atrocity, which is justified by the moral imperative to avoid a "larger" atrocity. I cannot accept this. You call it a metric of life, death and freedom. I say that such things cannot be measured in gross numbers. One unjust killing, or a million - it makes no difference. Murder is murder. A soldier is someone who kills in circumstances which we have generally accepted as "just" (though I have grave personal difficulties with this viewpoint, I accept it as the way of the world). There are rules that govern his killing, rules that are (or ideally should be) inculcated by training, clarified by specific rules of engagement and enforced by a military justice system. A murderer is someone who kills unjustly, whose killing cannot be morally sanctioned. If a soldier commits an unjust killing, he ceases to be a soldier, and becomes a murderer. That's what war crimes tribunals are about. War crimes tribunals, by their nature, tend to target high-profile criminals - the Goerings and Milosevics of the world. But there is no fundamental difference between great and little murderers. The moral taint isn't quantitative, it's qualitative. You're either a murderer or not. War is a situation of "justified" killing. Soldiers embark upon warfare to ensure some commonly-accepted objective. Soldiers have, to some degree, accepted this. Some might even argue that conscripts, as adult citizens, have accepted the burden of military duty along with the privileges of citizenship - though I do not support this position myself. But civilians are not soldiers, and should be kept as safe as possible. What else can you ask a soldier fight for, if not for the safety of his home, his family and his loved ones? Targeting civilians directly is definitionally an atrocity. It is not an act of war, because it doesn't have military objectives - its sole objective is terrorism. Now, what follows adresses an emotionally-charged, "hot-button" issue, so please try to think about it, before engaging in reflex denial... Once you claim that the bombing of Dresden was justified, how will you call the World Trade Center bombing unjustified? Both were actions whose sole purpose was to attack an enemy's civilians, with the intent of terrorizing and demoralizing the enemy. Never mind what went before or came after - the actions themselves were morally equivalent, because you cannot justify an atrocity with reference to the enemy's evil. You cannot fight evil with evil. You are right - once war is joined, the probability of atrocities occurring approaches unity. But that this is logically true does not make it morally correct.
Yes, that would be a pity. So let's debate it reasonably - that should be more feasible, now. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
fractured78
Posts: 13 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the problem here is that mlund (sorry if I characterize your POV wrongly, please say so if I do) and I see morality in the world of gray. I don't know the particulars ofthe bombing of Dresden so I can't say definitively whether I think it was right or not. If what you said is true I'd place it as "people going too far." As I said before this doesn't justify it. It was morally wrong.
On a slightly different track...it's easy for us to sit and look back at history and knock down every single person for doing something wrong. In fifty years I'm sure people will be knocking down Desmond Tutu and Mother Theresa for some fault or other. We all wish that wars could be tidy, that only combatants were killed. Bombings only relegated to military targets, blah blah blah. To think that could possibly happen in reality and to judge people simply from such an idealized perspective is fallacy however. During WWII the allies did not have the weapons to only hit military targets, nor could they afford to be "civil" against an enemy that would not agree to it. I'll use my fighting metaphor for another example. Another guy and I are in a fistfight "dual." He draws a knife. I have a sword but I can't draw it because it would be an unfair advantage. I'm dead meat. Wars nowadays tend to be far "tidier" because we have weapons that can be used with surgical precision. The wars fought more recently, as well, do not have the desperation that was prevalent in WWII. I think it's a fallacy to morally judge the wars of the past without taking into account their situation. Let me try to illustrate to you what I think mlund was talking about: Bombing war bases: "only" soldiers die - justified? Bombing war factories/industry: Civilian targets die - wrong but strategically smart Bombing enemy capitals to destroy their leadership and demoralize their country: Many civilians die - really wrong but strategically smart Revenge bombing: Very wrong Bombing infrastructure (powerplants, water infrastructure): Cuases mass starvation and civilian hardship, also disrupts the enemies industry so they can't make weapons - wrong but strategically smart Allowing the enemy to win and enslave/destroy whole ethnic groups: Your nation, friends, and family are devastated -Most wrong of all Not winning as quickly as possible: Your comrades die, the people at home suffer, more enemy soldiers die, war drags on - wrong None of those choices are very good, and the fact that I've layered it out like in such a simplistic way is so absurd as to be downright scary. Like mlund said, however, war makes those within it "play god." They have to decide who lives or dies, which strategy is best. All choices affect all others, everything has repercussions. Put yourself in the shoes of a commander having to make these choices. Uncomfortable isn't it? Is there "morally correct" way to go about this? In the world of gray I'd say there is a way to do it with doing the least wrong. Something I would try to do but might fail miserably. In your world of black and white I'd say just about all strategies are flat evil. Guess I'm stuck doing nothing. Oh wait, in doing nothing I just let all my countrymen die, I guess I did something after all. Also, how you judge everything is a matter of perspective as well. IE-Was the bombing of a war factory revenge bombing or a strategic move? Was the death of thousands of civilians worth the fact that you stopped the enemy from producing tanks that were decimating your soldiers? Some of the military commanders might have seen it as a strategic move, others might have seen it as vengeance. Is there some easy way to say the action was right or not? No, but that's the nature of war. Gray, gray, and more gray... As for your throwing around broad brushed accusations about most Americans being a certain way. That's quite immature to say the least. Also to say that your comment wasn't some backhanded way of putting down all Americans is simple delusion on your part. Really your comments to mlund as simple "patriotic reflex" are quite sad. Did mlund ever express a patriotic "rah rah America" POV, say anything about your country or countrymen? No, he stuck to the issue of debate. You, however, did not. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For someone who claims to see shades of gray, your example is startlingly black-and-white. I notice there are no innocent bystanders (=civilians) getting in the way of this knifefight.
To a large extent, I agree with you - but do bear in mind that applying moral standards to past atrocities is, in fact, a large part of the core topic of this thread.
Righto - I think I'll address each of these, from a moral viewpoint. To add perspective, let's see what the Geneva Conventions (GCs) say about each.
Yes, from a moral standpoint - and the GCs agree. As I mentioned in a previous post, I disapporve of war on general moral principles, but let's not quibble over that. It's justified.
Morally questionable, but not necessarily over the line. From a moral standpoint, a factory supplying weaponry to the frontline soldiers might be considered a legitimate military target. In fact, the GCs allow this, provided the factories in question are military objectives. However, the GCs make a point of banning indiscriminate bombing, where no attempt is made to distinguish between military targets and incidental civilian losses.
Morally very wrong, as any citizen of Copenhagen, London or Tokyo can tell you. Or Kobe, Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Strategically smart? To be honest, I think it depends on the situation. Personally, I think Hitler made a grave mistake with the Blitz. Far from demoralising the British, it fanned their will to fight. At any rate, these are clear examples of "indiscriminate attacks", banned by the GCs (Protocol 1, article 51).
By this, I take it you mean a bombing that has little or no military objective, and which is undertaken in "retribution" for a previous attack. Something like Dresden, in fact. Yes, this is about as morally wrong as it gets. Killing for revenge always falls into the category of murder. To be morally justifiable (if at all), killing must serve a definite and positive purpose. A negative purpose taints it and makes it mere murder. And it's banned by the GCs, same ref. as before.
Well, historically, there is a lot of this sort of thing - the Soviets even realised that it could work both ways (the "scorched earth" strategy). But yes, it is morally reprehensible. And it's banned by the GCs. Protocol 1, articles 54-56.
Hmm. This isn't really an action, but rather the pragmatic underpinning of the need to make war. It is the moral justification for actually taking up arms against an enemy, and much as I despise war, I can find no fault with the philosophical reasoning.
This one is a bit iffier. After all, it draws you into a logical loop, where the need to win swiftly produces a moral "justification" for using any means at all, even morally abhorrent tactics. The problem is where to draw the line. I have no problem with this argument, providing the line is drawn short of atrocity. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Nothing justifies atrocities.
It may surprise you to learn that, given a black-and-white situation, where my own side was losing and faced with abhorrent subjugation, ethnic cleansing and whatnot, I would, in fact, not hesitate to use a (hypothetical) ultimate weapon that wreaked indiscriminate havoc among the enemy soldiers and civilians alike - if I believed that this was the only way to avoid the horror that losing would bring. There is no way that this would be justified, and there is no way that I could ever feel at peace with myself afterwards. I would indisputably be a war criminal - and, assuming I hadn't already taken care of the matter, I'd expect to stand trial for my crimes, and I'd expect to be convicted. But I would commit the crime in the first place, because I am not a paragon of virtue, I am just a weak human being whose desire to protect my own outweighs my scruples. Human beings are weak, and commit crimes - that is the nature of the human condition. Moral and law, however, are not supposed to be weak. They exist to guide and enforce the right thing - and they must be equally applied to all, victor as well as loser.
The answer (I'm tempted to say: of course) is that that is for a court to decide. It's not perfect, but that is how it's done - because it's how we strive for justice.
Not gray... red.
Interesting response. "Immature", "delusion", "quite sad", etc. Forgive me, but I have to dismiss it, because of its ad hominem character. I'm not above debating the character of my partners in a discussion, but there really has to be more substance to an argument than mere name-calling. If you'd actually adressed any of the points I raised, I'd be more inclined to consider it a worthy argument. Too bad, really - you were doing so well until you came to this paragraph. In case you were wondering... if someone verbally attacks my nation's "honour" in a debate (it's happened, so I'm not just making vague claims, here), I address the points they make. I don't call them "delusional" or "sad", because that merely deflates my own position. I'll call them "wrong" or "ignorant" or "foolish", if they are that - because these characteristics are usually more evident to the outside observer. Defeating them on the points, rather than resorting to name-calling, is more satisfying, too. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
fractured78
Posts: 13 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Uhh, did I ever make a moral judgment on my example? No, so how is that black and white? Also, in war, are civilians always "innocent bystanders"? Put them in my example and it becomes-Why didn't they do anything when it became unfair? Why are they circling around watching? You seem to think that there's always an easy, simple way to define "innocent" (that being civilian) in war. I wish there was, the Geneva Convention attempts to define it to take out moral ambiguity in war. Is it possible for them to succeed? Highly debatable.
Emphasis added since you missed my point.
That's my point entirely, I just don't see the line so easily drawn. As for the GC's, they are well and good, and if two nations are fighting a war I'd hope that both would follow them. However, in WWII, and even now, that is not always the case.
While the word "atrocity" is easy to define what constitutes an "atrocity" can be much more problematic. What's your definition? Also, I have never made the argument that atrocities are justified. An atrocity, by definition, cannot be justified. Sometimes they are easy to define-Nanjing an easy example. However my main point is they are often hard to define and the people who commit them might not be so easy to judge. I recommend you read "Country of my Skull" by Antjie Krog to see how difficult it really is. It's also a good read if you want to see how difficult it is to define "innocent bystander." When you read it you really wish there was some easy way to judge both...but I never found it.
The problem is, who defines morals and law? What about when those morals and laws are different across cultural bounds. From your posts I would think you'd say "God" or "the UN." God's existence is debatable, and the UN is an entity and not exactly an infallible one. Simply put, I know of no entity or source of knowledge that gives an absolutely definitive law or moral. In the end morals and laws are far more flexible than we may want to admit. Laws change over time. They can be amended. They can be unjust. Morals differ across cultural and religious boundaries.
Right, and the court has to muddle through all the grey just as we do. So the answer is still: there is no way. We just leave it up to them because we can wash our hands of having to do it ourselves and because they are better equipped (in theory) to deal with all the information.
I did discuss your points. By saying the bombing of Dresden was not justified (given your facts are true, I'm too ignorant of the subject to say definitively) I figured there was little to argue about on most of them. As for when someone calls out your country's "honor" when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand I see it as childish and tell them so. Which I did to you. You never answered my question about the content of mlund's response either. Why? Because the answer would be no, he never did, and so no, there was never a reason to bring up "patriotic reflex." What you did was not quite name calling but close enough for me. As for the backhanded comment on Americans, the more you deny it the less respect I have for you, nothing more to argue about that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
mlund
Posts: 60 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nothing morally certainly. Nothing intellectually either, if you don't mind further participation into the ad hominem deviation from the matter at hand.
The problem is that you bring out an unreasonably broad brush to make a point that seems unnecessarily tangental. It seems to be an unnecessary comment the resembles "trolling" more than anything constructive.
To be honest you "lost" me because it seems counter-productive and out of an otherwise impeccable form, as noted above. I also recognize that if the national roles were reversed, your expression of skepticism would be decried as an expression of ethnocentricity, if not outright bigotry, in many circles. However, I believe that such reactions are most often just politically correct nonsense. It is still generally considered to be in poor form to speak in negatively judgmental terms about a nationality, ethnicity, or race as a collective population, rather than addressing individuals, parties, or governments.
You're fixated on Dresden from your discussion with Gatsu. I'm not sure if applying it to my own post is more a Straw Man or a tangent. Purposefully killing a civilian population to demoralize the enemy is certainly on the low moral end of the scale for military activities. To follow the tangent through, however, you've got an interesting moral dillema. Do you choose inaction at the expense of the lives of others because it is somehow "cleaner" or action that you feel in some way tainted? Whose lives are more important? Is it a matter of numbers, innocence, or something more than that? Is it OK to torture someone who has planted a bomb in a school if that is the only way to locate it before the children are killed? Are certain methods of torture preferable to others?
You see, this is where I see means, motive, and ends all coming together for a better contextual view. Do you avoid any action that can harm civilians in the immediate future, no matter what the long-term consequences? If the civilians are being used as human shields for the enemy military or mass murderer, are you still prohibited from taking any action that might cost them their lives?
The greater question is this: Can humanity truly survive without monsters to protect it from the depredations of even greater monsters? Which monsters can a just and moral society at least tolerate for the sake of avoiding enslavement and murder at the hands of the worst humanity has to offer?
But where do you get the wisdom or privilege to lend definitions to the semantics, then? Some people seem to believe that "justice" entails murdering your daughter because she desires to be literate while tolerating the existance of homosexuals is an "atrocity."
Morally sanctioned by you? By God? By the man's country, culture, or religion? By those of his vicitms? By someone with the bigger gun, perhaps?
I don't know about war crimes tribunals. Sometimes they are honest and purposeful. Other times they are little more than kangaroo courts playing to the whims of those whose clout comes from the barrel of a gun, and little more. They are not all created equal.
Of course, the classification of "civilian" as "not a soldier" becomes extremely shaky when you have people such as spies and unlawful combatants - though this could certainly become a greater issue of criminal behavior during a wartime situation subject to martial law.
Which I never have, just to point out.
I would assume a person would judge their own morality, motives, and ends as superior to those of the terrorist hijackers. However, both may be "over the line" completely due to their means.
In the same respect, however, is bombing a Danish armed forces station because you hate modern Danish culture morally equivalent to bombing an Al-Qaida military camp since neither targets civilians? Or does it matter that the Al-Qaida members act with the intent of ethnic clensing, religious intolerance, and general oppression and abuse of innocent life while the Danes have no such designs? Is assault and murder the same level of povocation as being a member of the "wrong" religion or opening a McDonalds in the wrong neighborhood?
Here we are at an impasse. If the only means to prevent a greater atrocity is a lesser atrocity, we're all royally screwed.
I beg to differ. The problem is that you can not ultimately defeat evil with more evil. The "best" outcome of a strictly evil v. more evil conflict would ultimately be a nihilistic solution, I suppose. That's not acceptable in my opinion.
Agreed. It may, however, be the only thing left holding the line keeping the free world from jackboots and gas chambers. It isn't right and it shouldn't be the eternal status quo - but it is also better than many alternatives that history has shown us.
To the counter-point, however, if I were to refuse to "push the button," I would also think myself to be an accomplice to the horror that would come. I would find no measure of peace with my life and I would lay the blame at the feet of my own lack of scruples. In my eyes, it would be equally if not moreso damning to put my own soul above the lives and freedoms of not only my own people, but all those subjected to the rule of this hypothetical, Nazi-like enemy - including the "enemy" civilians and soldiers. Just how much is my soul worth when measured in the blood of innocents, I wonder? - Marty Lund |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hmm. You could be right. But it needn't be Dresden. What we're discussing is the moral status of atrocious action in warfare. Your position (correct me if I am wrong) seems to be that there are relative moral considerations with regard to atrocious behaviour. That some atrocities are mandated by the need to avoid greater atrocities. My position, as previously stated, is absolute: there are no relative stages of atrocity, whether in terms of numbers of victims or military considerations. No atrocity is "greater" or "lesser" than another - because thinking that way invites using the atrocities of others to justify jumping on the bandwagon and committing one's own atrocities.
Well, sticking with the school bus example, the point I desired to make was that the first situation (mad killer with hostages -> you have to kill him to save them) you described was the morally unassailable one. The counter-example that I raised (taking the killer's family as counter-hostages) was to illustrate the fact that atrocity does not justify atrocity. I still think it makes the point quite well. When you create a stylized hypothetical situation for the sake of argument, you must accept that others use the circumstances of that hypothetical situation to make their own points, by extending the analogy. That's what I did. If the results weren't to your liking, you should have picked a better example. 
Leaving aside the "human shield" question - because that is truly a sticky wicket, with no good moral answer - I'd like to point out that the problem here isn't civilian casualties as such. They happen in war, there's no avoiding it. The problem is intentionally targeting civilians. That isn't "on the low moral end of the scale" - it's an atrocity by definition.
To believe that a monster will ever be anything but a monster, to think that you can employ monstrous methods without irreparably tainting yourself morally, is truly naïve. Once you employ the services of monsters, you become a monster yourself. You may not notice it, but the moral decay will have set in, the moment you make the decision to allow such tactics.
Hmm. I'm not the only person who can use cultural stereotypes to tar entire populations with a big brush, eh?
Let's see, could you be referring to Fred Phelps' crowd? No, they haven't murdered any daughters, yet. Or was there some other population group you were thinking of? 
Good question - one that has been the topic of debate for centuries now. The current agreed-upon consensual answer is in the form of the Geneva Conventions for the subject of warfare, and in the form of the local penal code, for civilian murder. Does that answer your question?
Stipulated. A couple of examples spring to mind: - The tribunal that ordered the death of Nicolae Ceasescu, for instance, was a kangaroo court - however guilty he was, he deserved a fair trial. Anyone does. - What about the Nuremburg trials, or the Tokyo trials? We know that the United States colluded with Japanese war criminals at the Tokyo trials, failing to prosecute them for their crimes, in return for research data on biological warfare. Not waht I'd call a fair trial. - Slobodan Milosevic's stated position is that he doesn't recognise the war crimes tribunal that is judging him. - The United States has, notoriously, refused to accept that U.S. soldiers can be tried by the international war crimes tribunal. Obviously from the above, war crimes tribunals have a lot of attendant problems. But do we have a better solution?
Actually, the Geneva Conventions directly address this, separating spies from civilians - and from soldiers. They form a class of their own. As for "unlawful combatants"... I truly, truly dislike that term. It is an innovation created, in my opinion, solely to justify the desire to avoid giving captured prisoners of war the protections normally guaranteed to POWs. It's Orwellian doublethink - "if we don't call them prisoners of war, we don't have to treat them as such". Wrong - I could call a frog a cow, but I don't think there'd be much percentage in trying to milk it. Now, if you'd said partisans, insurgents, rebels, freedom fighters, or whatever term one might feel applies to combatants not wearing uniform, then it would be a different matter. As it happens, their legal position is one of the most hotly debated issues within the framework of the Geneva Conventions. The fact that Protocol 1 of the GCs grants them equal status as uniformed combatants is one of the reasons why many states (including the United States) have held off on ratifying Protocol 1. For a discussion of the current legal status of those detained by the U.S. using this terminology, see this page.
I didn't say that - but my wording was imprecise. For "Once you claim", please read "once one claims". Forgive me for the colloquialism.
Precisely my point. I'm glad you agree.
Yes and no. The "... because you hate modern Danish culture" isn't necessary - the Danish troops are presently engaged in warlike activities, and that makes military bases legitimate targets of military actions. Notice that I don't like this - I strongly disapprove of the Danish presence in Iraq - but that it is nevertheless an incontrovertible conclusion. Similarly, attacking an Al-Qaeda camp is a legitimate military action, since there is reason to believe that everyone in the camp is potentially a combatant. Far better to capture than to bomb, though. If we're ever going to win over the terrorists, it will be through moral superiority - by not descending to their level. Otherwise it's just another phase in an endless cycle of revenge kilings.
You're "comparing apples and pears", as the Danish saying goes. Armed response to armed provocation is one thing. Attacking non-combatants is another thing. The Al-Qaeda members in the hypothetical camp have made themselves legitimate targets of military response. Likewise, the Danish (and American, and Polish, and British, etc.) soldiers are legitimate targets. But targetting, say, the Red Cross or the U.N. in Iraq is not legitimate. That's terrorism. It's an atrocity when someone deliberately drops a bomb on a non-combatant. It's an accident of war when the same bomb was intended for another, legitimate target (barring gross negligence, of course).
I agree - though probably not in the sense that you meant it. What I mean is that sometimes, circumstances make atrocities unavoidable on either side. My position, however, is that there can be no justification for atrocity, and a civilised person or state must take responsibility for his/its atrocities - by standing trial for war crimes (if an individual) or by offering reparations and apologies (if a state). I never meant to imply that guilt was eternal. If it were, then we'd still be apologising for war crimes committed in ancient Egypt. There has to be a sense of responsibility. However, such issues are mooted by the passage of time. The British never apologised for bombing Copenhagen in 1807, and I'd not expect them to do so now.
Mmm... We're saying the same thing with different words. Let me try again: You should not attempt to fight evil with evil, because the net result is only more evil.
Ah, the pragmatic argument. I'm not free from this, myself. As previously stated, I'd be unable to stand up to my own high moral standards, given sufficiently aggravated circumstances. But that doesn't invalidate those standards, it merely highlights my human imperfection.
Surely, not "lack of scruples", but rather "surfeit of scruples"?
Hmm. This begs the question: can one become a sort of twisted version of a "hero", by accepting the onus of an intolerable moral dilemma and making the abhorrent but practically necessary decision required by the situation - thereby damning oneself but saving one's fellows? Can the taint be personal, rather than national? Obviously, that would be the reasoning behind the statue of Arthur Harris, in London. Assuming such moral concerns ever entered into the minds of those who raised up the statue - and not merely a desire to honour the "hero". -abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tempest
I Run this place. ANN Publisher Posts: 10474 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Who would we apologize to? The Ancient Egyptians were completely wiped over a millenium ago. What very little was left of the race emigrated to what is now Lebanon and has since been more or less assimilated. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Precisely the point.
In an earlier post in this thread, I pointed out that, all Old Testament-ish "sins of the fathers" aside, it is unfair to expect someone to bear a burden of guilt for a crime that he didn't commit. You can't "inherit" guilt for a crime. And, as the example with ancient Egypt demonstrates, after enough time has passed it becomes impossible to say who has inherited the "privilege" of victim, and who has inherited the "guilt" of perpetrator - and not just impossible, but irrelevant. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group