Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Seznam diskusních klubů
Není vám dovoleno psát zprávy do tohoto klubu. Minimální úroveň členství vyžadovaná pro psaní v tomto klubu je Brain pěšec.
Let's follow your logic: You have to support dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You have to agree that the people of Dresden, -who where were burned alive, women and children, young and old, - have no reason to complain.
Artful Dodger: In one sense your extension of my logic is correct, in another sense incorrect.
First, yes, that Germany & Japan were aggressive powers, resulted justly in aggression being used against them. It's called the right of self-defense, and the Allied powers exerted this right.
Now, the issue we are speaking of here, is the targeting of civilians. Now let us assume that the Germans & Japanese also targeted civilians, and did so first. Then, you are correct, the peoples of Germany & Japan had strictly no cause to complain when they were targeted.
But this argument misses the broader perspective, which is that it is immoral to attack unarmed civilians. Therefore, while American civilians, if attacked on their own soil by Iraqi forces, would have essentially brought it upon themselves, it does not follow that the killing of civilians can ever be a righteous act in itself.
Think of how God used Nebadchanezzar (sp) to punish Judah. Judah, for their injustices, deserved the punishment. However, God's weapon of punishing (Babylon) was not therefore righteous. Rather it was an unrighteous power utilized by God for the righteous punishment of Judah. Only God can pull this off, by the way.
So the issue of civilian casualties is more complex. But the principle stands, don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.
The Usurper:"Therefore, while American civilians, if attacked on their own soil by Iraqi forces, would have essentially brought it upon themselves, it does not follow that the killing of civilians can ever be a righteous act in itself."
This is saying two different things. So I'll respond to them individually, then it's off to bed.
"Therefore, while American civilians, if attacked on their own soil by Iraqi forces, would have essentially brought it upon themselves, ..."
Nonsense
"it does not follow that the killing of civilians can ever be a righteous act in itself."
Of course this can't follow (so we agree) but in this case only because the first statement is nonsense.
Artful Dodger: To make my point about Hiroshima & Dresden a little more clear, look at this way:
The Germans & Japanese deserved what they got. But the Allied powers, in targeting civilians, acted unrighteously nevertheless. Like Babylon, they were a punishing instrument in the hands of God (if you will), but the nature of these acts were evil & themselves merit divine retribution.
(skrýt) Použijte Zápisník pro otestování vzhledu popisu s HTML tagy na vašem profilu, dříve než skutečně změníte profil. (Jen platící členové) (rednaz23) (zobrazit všechny tipy)