Re: Nuke 'Em Again!!

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

David Cohen said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Most people consider the death of innocents in the Dresden fire bombing
to be something worth mourning.

It was war, it's got a reason, but you still mourn for the loss of life.

No, you don't. You honor your own dead for their sacrifice, and you
celebrate the death of the enemy.

Not enemy non-combattants.

Enemy is enemy. Dead enemy is good.

David

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dally said:

David Cohen said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Most people consider the death of innocents in the Dresden fire bombing to
be something worth mourning.

It was war, it's got a reason, but you still mourn for the loss of life.

No, you don't. You honor your own dead for their sacrifice, and you
celebrate the death of the enemy.

Not enemy non-combattants.

Dally, pray, pray *very* *hard*, that the [censored] never hits the fan in
your lifetime, not only because of the hit "civilization" will take
if that happens, but because you're clearly not well-suited for
survival in such an environment. And I'm being as kind as I can
possibly be. (Most of us aren't. I'm not claiming I am.)

Define "non-combatant" in total war. In total war, everybody, or at
least the majority, on the enemy side of the lines can be assumed to
be aiding the enemy war effort, directly or indirectly, no? Thus, it
could be argued that, in total war, there are only two classes of
enemy non-combatants: "POWs" and "casualties."

Quoted message said:

It's actually even possible to feel compassionate about the death of
anemy combattants if you try hard enough.

[snip]

But why would you *want* to? Presumably the opposing force was
trying to do to you what you did to them. You were just better,
faster, had more firepower, were luckier, some combination of
those... You can regret the necessity, sure. Warriors prepare for
war, but do not look forward to it. A warrior accepts the
inevitability of combat, but does not seek to encourage it. A
warrior may respect, may honour his enemy, but compassion? Maybe, if
the enemy lost poorly, died unnecessarily, suffered slaughter beyond
reason: Yes. But otherwise: They were the enemy. Particularly in
the case where the enemy has brought the battle to you, has provoked
the conflict: No--no compassion. Not a chance in hell.

I once read that USAians are unique in world history. The author
claimed the USA was the only country that's ever truly regretted
having won wars. We're the only country that, after having won,
didn't turn around and say "You lose! We win! All your country are
belong to us now!" We're the only country that's ever gone in, after
the fact, and said "We're sorry we kicked your ass after you attacked
us! Here: Have a bunch of money and aid on us. We will help you
rebuild." I'm no historian, so I don't know about the veracity of
that claim. But, assuming it's accurate: It's okay by me. If we can
afford to do it, great. Glad to be of help.

The world criticizing us for dropping nukes on Japan to end its
aggression? *spit* I have but one response to that, but it'll
remain unsaid here, as I tend to avoid such language in public
forums.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dally said:

David Cohen said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Most people consider the death of innocents in the Dresden fire bombing to
be something worth mourning.

It was war, it's got a reason, but you still mourn for the loss of life.

No, you don't. You honor your own dead for their sacrifice, and you
celebrate the death of the enemy.

Not enemy non-combattants.

Dally, pray, pray *very* *hard*, that the [censored] never hits the fan in
your lifetime, not only because of the hit "civilization" will take
if that happens, but because you're clearly not well-suited for
survival in such an environment. And I'm being as kind as I can
possibly be. (Most of us aren't. I'm not claiming I am.)

Define "non-combatant" in total war. In total war, everybody, or at
least the majority, on the enemy side of the lines can be assumed to
be aiding the enemy war effort, directly or indirectly, no? Thus, it
could be argued that, in total war, there are only two classes of
enemy non-combatants: "POWs" and "casualties."

Quoted message said:

It's actually even possible to feel compassionate about the death of
anemy combattants if you try hard enough.

[snip]

But why would you *want* to? Presumably the opposing force was
trying to do to you what you did to them. You were just better,
faster, had more firepower, were luckier, some combination of
those... You can regret the necessity, sure. Warriors prepare for
war, but do not look forward to it. A warrior accepts the
inevitability of combat, but does not seek to encourage it. A
warrior may respect, may honour his enemy, but compassion? Maybe, if
the enemy lost poorly, died unnecessarily, suffered slaughter beyond
reason: Yes. But otherwise: They were the enemy. Particularly in
the case where the enemy has brought the battle to you, has provoked
the conflict: No--no compassion. Not a chance in hell.

I once read that USAians are unique in world history. The author
claimed the USA was the only country that's ever truly regretted
having won wars. We're the only country that, after having won,
didn't turn around and say "You lose! We win! All your country are
belong to us now!" We're the only country that's ever gone in, after
the fact, and said "We're sorry we kicked your ass after you attacked
us! Here: Have a bunch of money and aid on us. We will help you
rebuild." I'm no historian, so I don't know about the veracity of
that claim. But, assuming it's accurate: It's okay by me. If we can
afford to do it, great. Glad to be of help.

The world criticizing us for dropping nukes on Japan to end its
aggression? *spit* I have but one response to that, but it'll
remain unsaid here, as I tend to avoid such language in public
forums.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

Dopey censored said:

Dally said:

David Cohen said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>It was war, it's got a reason, but you still mourn for the loss of life.

No, you don't. You honor your own dead for their sacrifice, and you
celebrate the death of the enemy.

Not enemy non-combattants.

Dally, pray, pray *very* *hard*, that the [censored] never hits the fan in
your lifetime, not only because of the hit "civilization" will take
if that happens, but because you're clearly not well-suited for
survival in such an environment. And I'm being as kind as I can
possibly be. (Most of us aren't. I'm not claiming I am.)

Define "non-combatant" in total war. In total war, everybody, or at
least the majority, on the enemy side of the lines can be assumed to
be aiding the enemy war effort, directly or indirectly, no? Thus, it
could be argued that, in total war, there are only two classes of
enemy non-combatants: "POWs" and "casualties."

I'm advocating against total war. I know it exists, I'm trying to avoid
it. One way to avoid it is to get people to understand that it is BAD
to kill non-combattants. Don't be gleeful about bombing a bunch of
hospitals and schools. Collateral damage ought to be by ACCIDENT or
because it was also being used as a military base. It ought to be, so
strive towards that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's actually even possible to feel compassionate about the death of
anemy combattants if you try hard enough.

[snip]

But why would you *want* to? Presumably the opposing force was
trying to do to you what you did to them. You were just better,
faster, had more firepower, were luckier, some combination of
those... You can regret the necessity, sure. Warriors prepare for
war, but do not look forward to it. A warrior accepts the
inevitability of combat, but does not seek to encourage it. A
warrior may respect, may honour his enemy, but compassion? Maybe, if
the enemy lost poorly, died unnecessarily, suffered slaughter beyond
reason: Yes. But otherwise: They were the enemy. Particularly in
the case where the enemy has brought the battle to you, has provoked
the conflict: No--no compassion. Not a chance in hell.

That is very well said and you make a compelling case. But the Japanese
bombed a military base, not downtown Honolulu. (I think. I'm not a
WWII historian.)

Yes they were Bad Enemies, but not all of them were. That's what I mean
by non-combattants: the ones that were just in the wrong place at the
wrong time, the people with no vote over who their Emperor was, the
people who were just minding their own business not having any activity
in the war other than hoping their side won.

Quoted message said:

I once read that USAians are unique in world history. The author
claimed the USA was the only country that's ever truly regretted
having won wars. We're the only country that, after having won,
didn't turn around and say "You lose! We win! All your country are
belong to us now!" We're the only country that's ever gone in, after
the fact, and said "We're sorry we kicked your ass after you attacked
us! Here: Have a bunch of money and aid on us. We will help you
rebuild." I'm no historian, so I don't know about the veracity of
that claim. But, assuming it's accurate: It's okay by me. If we can
afford to do it, great. Glad to be of help.

It has to do with how to end conflicts. The other method is to keep
wars going over hundreds of years. Serbs and Croats. Tutsis and Hutus.
Shiites and Sunnis. France and England. We're going to have to do
the same thing in Iraq: it isn't enough to win the war, you also have to
win the peace. The U.S. is pretty good at that. We take our enemies
and turn them into allies. I honestly think we can do the same thing
with the moderate Muslim community. Them is us. (I'm paraphrasing Pogo
here.)

Quoted message said:

The world criticizing us for dropping nukes on Japan to end its
aggression? *spit* I have but one response to that, but it'll
remain unsaid here, as I tend to avoid such language in public
forums.

There are reasonable arguments to be made (and have been made here) that
there were other options besides bombing a civilian population.
Criticism is inevitable and necessary when you take that sort of drastic
action. Assessing it is appropriate.

But my point all along is that we need to REGRET doing it and try hard
NOT to do it. Because it is WRONG to kill innocents. Wrong at a very
human level and war excuses it but does not ENCOURAGE it or make it right.

But your initial point is right. I need to pray very hard I'm never in
a total war. But not because I'm afraid for myself, but because I'm
afraid for everyone.

Dally

Dopey censored said:

Dally said:

David Cohen said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>It was war, it's got a reason, but you still mourn for the loss of life.

No, you don't. You honor your own dead for their sacrifice, and you
celebrate the death of the enemy.

Not enemy non-combattants.

Dally, pray, pray *very* *hard*, that the [censored] never hits the fan in
your lifetime, not only because of the hit "civilization" will take
if that happens, but because you're clearly not well-suited for
survival in such an environment. And I'm being as kind as I can
possibly be. (Most of us aren't. I'm not claiming I am.)

Define "non-combatant" in total war. In total war, everybody, or at
least the majority, on the enemy side of the lines can be assumed to
be aiding the enemy war effort, directly or indirectly, no? Thus, it
could be argued that, in total war, there are only two classes of
enemy non-combatants: "POWs" and "casualties."

I'm advocating against total war. I know it exists, I'm trying to avoid
it. One way to avoid it is to get people to understand that it is BAD
to kill non-combattants. Don't be gleeful about bombing a bunch of
hospitals and schools. Collateral damage ought to be by ACCIDENT or
because it was also being used as a military base. It ought to be, so
strive towards that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's actually even possible to feel compassionate about the death of
anemy combattants if you try hard enough.

[snip]

But why would you *want* to? Presumably the opposing force was
trying to do to you what you did to them. You were just better,
faster, had more firepower, were luckier, some combination of
those... You can regret the necessity, sure. Warriors prepare for
war, but do not look forward to it. A warrior accepts the
inevitability of combat, but does not seek to encourage it. A
warrior may respect, may honour his enemy, but compassion? Maybe, if
the enemy lost poorly, died unnecessarily, suffered slaughter beyond
reason: Yes. But otherwise: They were the enemy. Particularly in
the case where the enemy has brought the battle to you, has provoked
the conflict: No--no compassion. Not a chance in hell.

That is very well said and you make a compelling case. But the Japanese
bombed a military base, not downtown Honolulu. (I think. I'm not a
WWII historian.)

Yes they were Bad Enemies, but not all of them were. That's what I mean
by non-combattants: the ones that were just in the wrong place at the
wrong time, the people with no vote over who their Emperor was, the
people who were just minding their own business not having any activity
in the war other than hoping their side won.

Quoted message said:

I once read that USAians are unique in world history. The author
claimed the USA was the only country that's ever truly regretted
having won wars. We're the only country that, after having won,
didn't turn around and say "You lose! We win! All your country are
belong to us now!" We're the only country that's ever gone in, after
the fact, and said "We're sorry we kicked your ass after you attacked
us! Here: Have a bunch of money and aid on us. We will help you
rebuild." I'm no historian, so I don't know about the veracity of
that claim. But, assuming it's accurate: It's okay by me. If we can
afford to do it, great. Glad to be of help.

It has to do with how to end conflicts. The other method is to keep
wars going over hundreds of years. Serbs and Croats. Tutsis and Hutus.
Shiites and Sunnis. France and England. We're going to have to do
the same thing in Iraq: it isn't enough to win the war, you also have to
win the peace. The U.S. is pretty good at that. We take our enemies
and turn them into allies. I honestly think we can do the same thing
with the moderate Muslim community. Them is us. (I'm paraphrasing Pogo
here.)

Quoted message said:

The world criticizing us for dropping nukes on Japan to end its
aggression? *spit* I have but one response to that, but it'll
remain unsaid here, as I tend to avoid such language in public
forums.

There are reasonable arguments to be made (and have been made here) that
there were other options besides bombing a civilian population.
Criticism is inevitable and necessary when you take that sort of drastic
action. Assessing it is appropriate.

But my point all along is that we need to REGRET doing it and try hard
NOT to do it. Because it is WRONG to kill innocents. Wrong at a very
human level and war excuses it but does not ENCOURAGE it or make it right.

But your initial point is right. I need to pray very hard I'm never in
a total war. But not because I'm afraid for myself, but because I'm
afraid for everyone.

Dally

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Dopey censored) said:

Dally, pray, pray *very* *hard*, that the [censored] never hits the fan in
your lifetime, not only because of the hit "civilization" will take
if that happens, but because you're clearly not well-suited for
survival in such an environment.

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -George Orwell

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Dopey censored) said:

Dally, pray, pray *very* *hard*, that the [censored] never hits the fan in
your lifetime, not only because of the hit "civilization" will take
if that happens, but because you're clearly not well-suited for
survival in such an environment.

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -George Orwell

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>, Dally <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That is very well said and you make a compelling case. But the Japanese
bombed a military base, not downtown Honolulu.

And you think they did this out of compassion for us? Again, as has been
pointed out to you over and over, take a look at the crimes against
humanity by the hands of the Japanese against every country they came in
contact with. They bombed a military base in this case because there was
a strategic reason to do so for them (hoping to take out or fleet in the
Pacific theater) and has nothing to do with honor or compassion on their
part.

Quoted message said:

(I think. I'm not a
WWII historian.)

That much is clear!

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/