<<Then why didn't our pilots refuse to carpet bomb civilians in Hamburg, for example, during WWII? Because they were brainwashed into believing that the only good German was a dead one. Read George's post and become educated rather than reactionary. A reactionary, such as yourself, is easily "turned" in whatever direction the controlling power finds convenient. You are displaying anger because your logic is flawed and anger is a typical response rather than humility, i.e., admitting one's error in judgement.
I will ask you some questions:
Upon what do you base your value of right or wrong?
Is there ultimate truth?>>
Why didnt we just roll over and play dead and hope the German blitzkreig would pass us by? WWII wasnt some limited war like you and I are accustomed to seeing. WWII was total war, Germany and Japan were as nations, one gigantic war machine. Civilians in the industrial heartland were as much a part of that war machine as a munitions factory. The same tactics would be used in any clash between major powers today: total war to destroy a nations ability to both keep fighting and the willingness to do so. That is ugly. But that is how it was. The real question should have been, why didnt US troops engage in slaughter and rape and pillage of civilians in occupied territory, like their Russian comrades did? They were no longer a piece of the German war puzzle. Dont be obtuse.
A reactionary? Maybe, if what is meant by reactionary is defending what you believe to be right. What about yourself? You refuse to accept anything that does not contain anti-US rhetoric. Your thinking has thus far failed to show any pattern of consistency except what may be construed to be revisionist, apologist, hogwash. I suppose you believe we should pay reparations for our "crimes" against Germany and Japan? That would certainly fit into your thinking. As to my anger, yes I am angry at your simpleton response to my post when any half-wit could have comprehended the answer to your reply was in the original post which you obviously did not read with your thinking cap on. My flawed logic? You have yet to point out any flaw in my logic. What you have pointed out is your uncanny ability to draw conclusions from unsupporting premises.
As to my philosophy, to state it in brief, I paraphrase Kant: "treat others always as ends, and never as mere means." Is there ultimate truth? Depends on what kind of truth you want. Is there objective facts independent of the mind and capable of being discovered through the use of reason? Yes. Is all truth knowable? In all probability, no. Good enough? |
