SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (40703)12/21/2001 3:19:49 AM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
Too ostentatious a display of "patriotism" may sometimes suggest a deep prejudice and hatred for other people or countries. It must be remembered, Mr. Dithers: your primary allegiance is to humanity. You are a human being, first; you are an American, second. To reverse this order is to nurture the roots of bigotry and hatred.

The incendiary bombing of civilian populations was an established policy. The dropping of the A-bombs continued this policy of indiscriminate warfare.

home.istar.ca

On hindsight, there is no reasonable debate as to whether or not the killing of millions of innocent civilians had any actual impact on ending the war. The report made it clear that it did not. Japan would have surrendered without invasion, and regardless of the soviets.

"Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

There is no cogent basis to debate these facts. Shouting at me, threatening me, and calling me names will not change the report. You cannot "SHOUT" out facts. Life is not a commercial, Mr. Dithers! <ggg>.

"Patriotism" is not an argument. The moral issue under discussion is whether or not the targeting of innocents such as children can be justified as a tactic of war, and whether it can ever be considered a civilized policy. Can such a policy be rationalized as a legitimate tactic of warfare, or ought it to be repudiated by thoughtful people? Patriotism and thoughtfulness are not mutually incompatible. Patriotism and error are not mutually exclusive.

Your posts attempt to "weight" the "argument" by an appeal to patriotism. Frankly, this is stupid, and utterly feckless. It is not a question of patriotism; it is a question of moral judgement. One does not even need to be an American citizen to debate moral issues. Morality is the province of all humankind. You understand that, don't you, Mr. Dithers?

There is nothing unpatriotic about examining past decisions with the dispassionate eye of elapsed time. It is not unpatriotic to seek out mistakes, and to learn from them: people grow, and they move along. This is how societies are improved. This is how nations become more civilized.

Real men and women make mistakes. But real men and women stay to face their mistakes: they do not run them up a flag pole. Instead, they contemplate and they consider. They explore with an honest heart. They probe with a fearless mind. They learn and they march forward; and in the process, society becomes a kinder and a better place.

So forget (for a moment or two) American lives. Think about human lives. Little children do not require a U.S. Citizenship to be valued as humans. Their innocence is innate. They are powerless to control their destiny. They live or they die, in war or in peace--by the actions we take or by the humanity we eschew. We cannot evade this responsibility.

We chose to kill them indiscriminately: death by the agony of fire. Some people regret that choice. Others say it was made in good faith because at the time they did not know that Japan would surrender. Others say that our ignorance of that is unproven, and, in any case, irrelevant: innocent people should never be used as a means to an end.

Shouting at such people, Mr. Dithers, does not make your case that barbecuing children is anything to beat your manly chest about. Popping patriotic buttons off your chest is not an argument; nor is name calling. I would appreciate it if you would be polite. People do not need your insinuations that having the conscience to examine and to question the policy of incendiary bombing is somehow unpatriotic. You ought to understand freedom a little bit better than that...
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext