Unwavering pacifism is not a government's solution for protecting your citizens.Coke Bear said:
Sounds very utilitarian. What if China wants to nuke our 350 million population to save their 1.1 billion?
I would argue that it's never morally right to commit evil to bring about a good.
Coke Bear said:
So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?
That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.
Coke Bear said:
So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?
That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.
Coke Bear said:
What in my post makes you think that it was about "unwavering pacifism."?
KaiBear said:Porteroso said:KaiBear said:
Here is something else to digest.
In less than 4 days ICE has arrested almost SIX HUNDRED illegal felons.
And there is only one way they could have done so.
ICE ALREADY KNEW EXACTLY where these felons were located.
Clearly the Biden administration had told ICE previously to stand down.
Dems put their woke ideology directly against the safety of American citizens.
Sickening.
Under the Biden admin, they were arresting more than 100 criminal illegals per day, on average. There were days when they arrested the same 300 per day.
Your view is quite ignorant. ICE says so far it is business as usual.
The new director of ICE tells a different story.
You are one 'special' individual.
D. C. Bear said:Coke Bear said:
What in my post makes you think that it was about "unwavering pacifism."?
When you say "I would argue that it's never morally right to commit evil to bring about a good," the "never" means "unwavering" and the "commit evil" means pacifism because war is itself requires the "commit evil" part.
Very lousy metaphorCoke Bear said:
So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?
That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.
hodedofome said:
Yeah I can't remember how many American lives we were projected to lose if we fought a war all the way to Tokyo. We decided it was better to lose Japanese lives than far more American lives. And let's be honest, the Japanese would have fought to the death as well.
They started it, let's not forget.
CammoTX said:
June 13 1865 was a pretty momentous day for a lot of people. Week when Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox also.
Add in the butchering of many slaves from the Northern black-hating troops and the rape of Southern women during things like Sherman's MarchKaiBear said:CammoTX said:
June 13 1865 was a pretty momentous day for a lot of people. Week when Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox also.
Reconstruction was a travesty imposed on the South for a longer period of time than the war itself.
But schools rarely if ever discuss it.
As the winners of a war control the historical narrative.
Assassin said:Add in the butchering of many slaves from the Northern black-hating troops and the rape of Southern women during things like Sherman's MarchKaiBear said:CammoTX said:
June 13 1865 was a pretty momentous day for a lot of people. Week when Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox also.
Reconstruction was a travesty imposed on the South for a longer period of time than the war itself.
But schools rarely if ever discuss it.
As the winners of a war control the historical narrative.
ron.reagan said:
US owns the biggest accomplishment in human history and you guys think Trump winning an election where everything will be reversed in 4 years is greatness
Why is it a lousy metaphor?Assassin said:Very lousy metaphorCoke Bear said:
So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?
That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.
It's that utilitarianism?KaiBear said:Coke Bear said:
So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?
That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.
No
We killed thousands to save millions.
And saved the lives of up to a million Americans in the process.
Coke Bear said:It's that utilitarianism?KaiBear said:Coke Bear said:
So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?
That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.
No
We killed thousands to save millions.
And saved the lives of up to a million Americans in the process.
Also the "saved millions" figure has been greatly exaggerated by those in defense of using the two bombs.
Americans only lost 405K in BOTH theaters. How would it have taken another "million" American lives to conquer Japan only when the whole population was "starving" to death?
Coke Bear said:It's that utilitarianism?KaiBear said:Coke Bear said:
So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?
That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.
No
We killed thousands to save millions.
And saved the lives of up to a million Americans in the process.
Also the "saved millions" figure has been greatly exaggerated by those in defense of using the two bombs.
Americans only lost 405K in BOTH theaters. How would it have taken another "million" American lives to conquer Japan only when the whole population was "starving" to death?
User name doesn't check out. You use the moniker "Preacher" but you seem to claim it's OK to commit evil.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:D. C. Bear said:Coke Bear said:
What in my post makes you think that it was about "unwavering pacifism."?
When you say "I would argue that it's never morally right to commit evil to bring about a good," the "never" means "unwavering" and the "commit evil" means pacifism because war is itself requires the "commit evil" part.
That, essentially, is utilitarianism. Called it math if you want. I understand your point. I held it for decades. It's taken me time to better understand and change my perspective.D. C. Bear said:
In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.
I don't doubt his responsibility to the American people. Dropping the on the city centers wasn't the only option.D. C. Bear said:
Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.
So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and onCoke Bear said:Why is it a lousy metaphor?Assassin said:Very lousy metaphorCoke Bear said:
So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?
That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.
If it's better to kill 100K instantly with an atomic bomb that would potentially starve to death, why wouldn't it be better to abort babies that are going to live their lives in poverty and potentially starve or be abused by bad parents?
Soldiers of the invaded nation are innocents. Really any 18 year old kids conscripted because one country declared war on another. The relativism you want to hold is false.Coke Bear said:User name doesn't check out. You use the moniker "Preacher" but you seem to claim it's OK to commit evil.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:D. C. Bear said:Coke Bear said:
What in my post makes you think that it was about "unwavering pacifism."?
When you say "I would argue that it's never morally right to commit evil to bring about a good," the "never" means "unwavering" and the "commit evil" means pacifism because war is itself requires the "commit evil" part.
I knew my post would certainly be a hot take. I still stand by it. It's taken me some time to come to that conclusion. I, like many of you, believed that we did the right thing with the bombs in protecting our people and our country.
Over time, I've come to release that the killing of innocents was morally wrong. I also believe the Bombing of Dresden was too much. The Allies also targeted the city center and other non-military targets.
I do believe in Just War Theory. I absolutely believe that WW2 fit the bill of a Just War.
I'm certainly not a pacifist. Wars are sometimes necessary evils.
Porteroso said:KaiBear said:
Here is something else to digest.
In less than 4 days ICE has arrested almost SIX HUNDRED illegal felons.
And there is only one way they could have done so.
ICE ALREADY KNEW EXACTLY where these felons were located.
Clearly the Biden administration had told ICE previously to stand down.
Dems put their woke ideology directly against the safety of American citizens.
Sickening.
Under the Biden admin, they were arresting more than 100 criminal illegals per day, on average. There were days when they arrested the same 300 per day.
Your view is quite ignorant. ICE says so far it is business as usual.
Coke Bear said:That, essentially, is utilitarianism. Called it math if you want. I understand your point. I held it for decades. It's taken me time to better understand and change my perspective.D. C. Bear said:
In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.I don't doubt his responsibility to the American people. Dropping the on the city centers wasn't the only option.D. C. Bear said:
Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.
You can rationalize it all you want. We're each entitled to our own opinion.
246,000 was the count from the bombs and the aftermath. Millions of Japanese were saved and probably close to, if not a million US servicemen. Maybe more if the Japanese had caught their breathD. C. Bear said:Coke Bear said:That, essentially, is utilitarianism. Called it math if you want. I understand your point. I held it for decades. It's taken me time to better understand and change my perspective.D. C. Bear said:
In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.I don't doubt his responsibility to the American people. Dropping the on the city centers wasn't the only option.D. C. Bear said:
Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.
You can rationalize it all you want. We're each entitled to our own opinion.
When I say the math is the math, I am not making any particular moral judgment on whether the math should be considered or in what way. It is, rather, a refutation of the argument that dropping the bombs was wrong because it killed so many people since not dropping the bomb would have killed even more.
I have heard people argue there were "other options," but I haven't seen many of those options that didn't involve something like starving millions of Japanese.
Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.Assassin said:
So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on
The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'
Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.
I understand your point; however, I will argue that morally in was wrong to target so many innocent civilians.D. C. Bear said:Coke Bear said:That, essentially, is utilitarianism. Called it math if you want. I understand your point. I held it for decades. It's taken me time to better understand and change my perspective.D. C. Bear said:
In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.I don't doubt his responsibility to the American people. Dropping the on the city centers wasn't the only option.D. C. Bear said:
Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.
You can rationalize it all you want. We're each entitled to our own opinion.
When I say the math is the math, I am not making any particular moral judgment on whether the math should be considered or in what way. It is, rather, a refutation of the argument that dropping the bombs was wrong because it killed so many people since not dropping the bomb would have killed even more.
I have heard people argue there were "other options," but I haven't seen many of those options that didn't involve something like starving millions of Japanese.
Would you agree that it is wrong to target innocent civilians?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:Soldiers of the invaded nation are innocents. Really any 18 year old kids conscripted because one country declared war on another. The relativism you want to hold is false.Coke Bear said:User name doesn't check out. You use the moniker "Preacher" but you seem to claim it's OK to commit evil.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:D. C. Bear said:Coke Bear said:
What in my post makes you think that it was about "unwavering pacifism."?
When you say "I would argue that it's never morally right to commit evil to bring about a good," the "never" means "unwavering" and the "commit evil" means pacifism because war is itself requires the "commit evil" part.
I knew my post would certainly be a hot take. I still stand by it. It's taken me some time to come to that conclusion. I, like many of you, believed that we did the right thing with the bombs in protecting our people and our country.
Over time, I've come to release that the killing of innocents was morally wrong. I also believe the Bombing of Dresden was too much. The Allies also targeted the city center and other non-military targets.
I do believe in Just War Theory. I absolutely believe that WW2 fit the bill of a Just War.
I'm certainly not a pacifist. Wars are sometimes necessary evils.
My moniker "preacher" is preceded by tinfoil hat, it is not anything more than that.
As for committing evil. Evil has various meanings. On its face a kid pulling the trigger to kill someone else in a different uniform because some other guy above him told him to is evil.
Coke Bear said:I understand your point; however, I will argue that morally in was wrong to target so many innocent civilians.D. C. Bear said:Coke Bear said:That, essentially, is utilitarianism. Called it math if you want. I understand your point. I held it for decades. It's taken me time to better understand and change my perspective.D. C. Bear said:
In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.I don't doubt his responsibility to the American people. Dropping the on the city centers wasn't the only option.D. C. Bear said:
Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.
You can rationalize it all you want. We're each entitled to our own opinion.
When I say the math is the math, I am not making any particular moral judgment on whether the math should be considered or in what way. It is, rather, a refutation of the argument that dropping the bombs was wrong because it killed so many people since not dropping the bomb would have killed even more.
I have heard people argue there were "other options," but I haven't seen many of those options that didn't involve something like starving millions of Japanese.
He's still hung up on his lousy metaphorKaiBear said:My friend it would have been morally incomprehensible not to use the bombs and invade Japan.Coke Bear said:I understand your point; however, I will argue that morally in was wrong to target so many innocent civilians.D. C. Bear said:Coke Bear said:That, essentially, is utilitarianism. Called it math if you want. I understand your point. I held it for decades. It's taken me time to better understand and change my perspective.D. C. Bear said:
In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.I don't doubt his responsibility to the American people. Dropping the on the city centers wasn't the only option.D. C. Bear said:
Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.
You can rationalize it all you want. We're each entitled to our own opinion.
When I say the math is the math, I am not making any particular moral judgment on whether the math should be considered or in what way. It is, rather, a refutation of the argument that dropping the bombs was wrong because it killed so many people since not dropping the bomb would have killed even more.
I have heard people argue there were "other options," but I haven't seen many of those options that didn't involve something like starving millions of Japanese.
Assassin said:He's still hung up on his lousy metaphorKaiBear said:My friend it would have been morally incomprehensible not to use the bombs and invade Japan.Coke Bear said:I understand your point; however, I will argue that morally in was wrong to target so many innocent civilians.D. C. Bear said:Coke Bear said:That, essentially, is utilitarianism. Called it math if you want. I understand your point. I held it for decades. It's taken me time to better understand and change my perspective.D. C. Bear said:
In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.I don't doubt his responsibility to the American people. Dropping the on the city centers wasn't the only option.D. C. Bear said:
Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.
You can rationalize it all you want. We're each entitled to our own opinion.
When I say the math is the math, I am not making any particular moral judgment on whether the math should be considered or in what way. It is, rather, a refutation of the argument that dropping the bombs was wrong because it killed so many people since not dropping the bomb would have killed even more.
I have heard people argue there were "other options," but I haven't seen many of those options that didn't involve something like starving millions of Japanese.
Wars are not only fought with soldiers. Once you understand that dynamic, the civilian issue takes on a new perspective. Wars aren't conducted just between armies, but nations and societies.Coke Bear said:I understand your point; however, I will argue that morally in was wrong to target so many innocent civilians.D. C. Bear said:Coke Bear said:That, essentially, is utilitarianism. Called it math if you want. I understand your point. I held it for decades. It's taken me time to better understand and change my perspective.D. C. Bear said:
In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.I don't doubt his responsibility to the American people. Dropping the on the city centers wasn't the only option.D. C. Bear said:
Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.
You can rationalize it all you want. We're each entitled to our own opinion.
When I say the math is the math, I am not making any particular moral judgment on whether the math should be considered or in what way. It is, rather, a refutation of the argument that dropping the bombs was wrong because it killed so many people since not dropping the bomb would have killed even more.
I have heard people argue there were "other options," but I haven't seen many of those options that didn't involve something like starving millions of Japanese.
