# Why is war morally wrong?

## Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, nymnpseudo said:

You would have done well to stop at your first statement that was worth FAR more than 10cents.

I'll stick to the general meaning of my whole statement thank you. "But situations do exist when one has no choice in the matter, and any moral concern need to be put in incubation for a period. As mentioned, the declaration of war by the British Commonwealth that commenced the WW2 is an example of an evil that was spreading and needed to be excised".

##### Share on other sites
16 hours ago, nymnpseudo said:

We all make mistakes, hindsight can correct them.

Not at all, in war, because sometimes you have to do the same again.

16 hours ago, nymnpseudo said:

If anyone calls someone a fool

Who did that?

captain hindsight...

Edited by dimreepr

##### Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 3:41 PM, beecee said:

I'll stick to the general meaning of my whole statement thank you. "But situations do exist when one has no choice in the matter, and any moral concern need to be put in incubation for a period. As mentioned, the declaration of war by the British Commonwealth that commenced the WW2 is an example of an evil that was spreading and needed to be excised".

What was the evil that was spreading?  It certainly was not persecution of the Jews, for all the 'allied' nations had rejected Jewish refugees prior to the war and returned them to Germany.   Other than the persecution of the Jews, WW2 was just another imperialist commercial enterprise in the form of another recovery of lost borders encompassing economic opportunity, or expansion of borders to protect a people in need of protection from another people seeing their resources as having economic opportunity.  As have been all wars since Christ and John the Baptist told everyone not to make war.  So .. BeeCee .. what exactly was the evil that was spreading?

On 2/9/2019 at 7:11 AM, dimreepr said:

Not at all, in war, because sometimes you have to do the same again.

Not if you don't have another war.

On 2/4/2019 at 1:44 PM, beecee said:

I would hazard a guess and say that despots such as Amin and Hitler could not be trusted anyway to abide by any mutually agreed diplomatic route.

Spoken like a true partriot of any nation opposing any other nations.  Would you, for instance, say the Australian, Canadian, U.S., British governments could be trusted to abide by the mutually agreed to treaties written by them for native aboriginal peoples?  History clearly shows constant continual deliberate betrayal of those treaties by the colonizers resulting in genocide of the colonized people, even those who embraced the culture of the colonizer.  Those are just easy examples.

On 2/8/2019 at 3:41 PM, beecee said:

I'll stick to the general meaning of my whole statement thank you.

Ah .. to have the priviledge of refusing a compliment.

On 1/18/2019 at 5:37 PM, Strange said:

Careful. Not all Christians think war is acceptable.

Excellent, Strange:  Mennonites, Hutterites, JWs,  Individuals, Quakers, original Pentecostals http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S2074-77052017000100031  many, many other denominations and individuals including Martin Luther King (resulting in not one African American mass murderer in the U.S.) Jesus Christ and John Baptist.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism

Also, there are sects and many individuals  in Islam which will not participate in violence.  As well, Jihad is not a militant action, but:   "Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. ... to mean individual struggle, not something violent or militaristic."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence

On 1/18/2019 at 2:47 PM, Itoero said:

The bible does 'say' homosexuals shall be put to death.(leviticus 20:13)

Wars do insert a random aspect. Basically in wars humans are killed because they are part of a 'group'.

Along with adulterous men and women Leviticus 20:10  ....  and people having sex with animals Exodus 22:19   .     The change with the New Testament is the Christ would cast the demons out of those people, allowing them to live.  However, if they returned to their old ways, natural influences like disease would and does eventually kill them if they remain in that sin.  It is said that HIV for instance began with monkeys, though I can't testify to that, not being a medical scientist.

On 1/29/2019 at 3:45 PM, peterwlocke said:

war is profitible. even a kid can see it. any parent who wants there kid to know how money making works would point this out.

War toys also .. six guns for kids a clear example.  Model fighter planes and bombers .. hundreds of millions of them sold.  $AND the sale of those items allow the ancient primal instinct that death rules to be given authority. Personally, I believe there is an even more ancient instinct that tells us to allow a person to live and you have a new friend to help in survival .. THAT instinct needs to be buried to promote military recruitment .. the burial of that first instinct comes early, toy six guns with holsters to three year old boys, etc. (A rifle is far better for hunting game, it is easy to see.) But a toy six gun, and a hero cowboy shooting a bad Indian (and all Indians are bad but Ghandi, right?) A powerful casket for the first instinct of love. On 2/1/2019 at 10:07 PM, Raider5678 said: I'd venture to say a war that if fought over purely gaining excess economic power is morally wrong. But at the same time, a nation that is on the brink of total starvation that starts a war to get land to grow food, which is an economic power, isn't necessarily morally wrong. Thank you for this PRIME example: If a nation is on the brink of total starvation WHERE do they get the money to buy weapons for war? WHERE do they get the physical and mental energy necessary for war? WHERE do they get the food and water to sustain their soldiers (Surely not from a neighbouring nation which has abundant food, because a neighbouring nation will amost certainly have the exact same conditions that lead to starvation for the starving nation.) The Hawaiian islands are a prime example of food supply NOT being a factor in war. Tribes in neighbouring valleys separated by mountains had the same conditions, the same super abundance of food on land and in the air and sea, yet tribal warfare was constant until one Hawaiian tribe overcame almost all other tribes by war, intervention of the Great Kahuna preventing invasion of the final island by way of storms, similar to storms twice drowning Chinese armies on their way to invade Japan, and of course the Spanish armada on the way to England. The United Nations in the 1970s estimated a possible population of either 40 or 80 billion for our planet IF things were done correctly. China was in a state of starvation for many decades ONLY because it was constantly being destroyed by Europe .. when that destruction ended, and Japanese and American attempts at destruction failed, China prospered, and now ships all types and quantities of food TO even Canada and the U.S. (The destruction of Vietnamese rice produces being a major reason for the Vietnamese war, to benefit California rice growers.) History and common sense clearly PROVES the complete fallacy of 'war for food.' However, war for iron ore, coal, gold, diamonds, uranium, oil, natural gas .. it's been ongoing since man learned how to smelt metals and make shiny toys to impress the ladies, including war toys. Edited by nymnpseudo Differentiate murder from hunting #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 2 hours ago, nymnpseudo said: What was the evil that was spreading? It certainly was not persecution of the Jews, for all the 'allied' nations had rejected Jewish refugees prior to the war and returned them to Germany. Whatever undesirable "racism" that may have been perpetrated by the Allies was, it certainly failed into insignificance to the wholesale slaughter, and attempted genocide by Hitler. Quote Spoken like a true partriot of any nation opposing any other nations. Would you, for instance, say the Australian, Canadian, U.S., British governments could be trusted to abide by the mutually agreed to treaties written by them for native aboriginal peoples? History clearly shows constant continual deliberate betrayal of those treaties by the colonizers resulting in genocide of the colonized people, even those who embraced the culture of the colonizer. Those are just easy examples. History also shows at least in my country, vast improvements in relations between indigenous folk and European settlers. Times change. The known world was also governed by the church in the middle ages and during the inquisition. Nations mature, people become aware of injustices and civilisations change for the better. The evils of Amin and Hitler were in anyone's language, extreme examples of evil that needed to be excised, not withstanding one-eyed apologists and excuse makes for such regimes. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites On 2/3/2019 at 5:30 PM, CharonY said: 1)The removing the morality of individual actions part is based on the framework used to establish the "just war" argument. A war is considered an act between nations, and that is were the just war argument shifts the morality. A person killing another person on the individual level is generally judged by factors such as motivation. E.g. killing in self-defence. However, even then killing is considered an extreme action. 2)In a war, however, it becomes an accepted element. I.e. soldiers do not kill to defend themselves per se, but they are following orders. In the just war doctrine, the soldier is therefore blameless, and the war as a whole is judged based on two main aspects that I mentioned before. A) the justification of the war and B) following conduct of war. However, there are (as usual) quite a few problems with this framework for morality. A fundamental one is the issue that this framework eliminates the morality of individual actions (as mentioned). Other issues exist when dealing with situations outside of two accepted nations. On top of that is the quasi legal framework that governs the right to go to war as well as conduct. The US, for example is not part of the international criminal court and as such undermines the very same framework that would ensure that point B would be followed within a just war doctrine. 3)As in the example I mentioned earlier, there is often also no objective measure to determine justification unless some legal system is applied. However even that is problematic as the case in disputed areas, for example. Some views are therefore shifting away from the just war framework and are looking into alternative moral theories, including shifting to individual actions again. But as a whole, it is quite a conundrum and I am sure one can spend year (as some have done) to explore this issue. 4)Either way, it is a deeply worrying system in which individual actions are freed from moral constraints and collateral damage is an expected﻿ outcome. I do find it dangerous to think oneself in a position of moral superiority while engaging these actions, as it makes the loss of human life trivial. In my mind, war even engaged out of necessity or considered just should be conducted with extreme regret. Sorry for the very late reply to a well thought out post. 1) Thanks for clarifying and I do agree. 2) First soldiers are not authorized to do just anything they feel justified in doing. Although prosecutions are few and far between there have been some cases where charges have been leveled against rank and file soldiers. Second you seem to be suggesting that soldiers commit acts of terror and violence against civilians because they feel they are fighting a moral war. I have always thought they do these things because they are put in a hellish situation. The North Koreans marched children in front of their assaults to force the Americans to shoot them first. You go through that a few times and all kinds of lines can get really blurry. I think this also explains the paucity of convictions for soldiers obviously guilty of war crimes. It is simply not fair what we ask them to do. But there are situations were I see no alternative. Do you know of any studies done of why soldiers commit war crimes. 3) Can you point me to any literature on this? I agree it is quite a conundrum. But didn't we try this with Vietnam already? Didn't we tell them how gulity they were when they returned home? Remember that most of these men were drafted. They got to choose between baby killer or deserter of ones country. No really not fair at all. 4) I agree with all this and in particular your last sentence. It is dangerous ground for a soldier to think he has the moral high ground and thats not the way I was trained. I was taught to leave the morality up to others. I was simply there to do a job. The very best soldiers do the job with extreme regret confident that those who's job it is to decide these things were sure there was no alternative. This describes the vast majority of our fighting men and women of today. You will never see these on the front page of your newspaper. That is reserved for those who crack or are using the situation to engage in dark desires they already had. I agree the only way a war could be considered moral is if it was conducted out of absolute necessity. I think it does happen that way some times. I think we both know it when we see it. On 2/8/2019 at 2:41 PM, beecee said: But﻿ situations do exist when one has no choice in the matter﻿, and any moral concern need to be put in incubation for a﻿ perio﻿d﻿﻿﻿. I respect your opinion beecee but I just can't agree with this. I don't see morality as something that can be put on hold. When you get to the point of where violence is the only means of protecting yourself or others then violence becomes moral. IMO Edited by Outrider #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 1 minute ago, Outrider said: 2) First soldiers are not authorized to do just anything they feel justified in doing. Although prosecutions are few and far between there have been some cases where charges have been leveled against rank and file soldiers. Second you seem to be suggesting that soldiers commit acts of terror and violence against civilians because they feel they are fighting a moral war. I have always thought they do these things because they are put in a hellish situation. The North Koreans marched children in front of their assaults to force the Americans to shoot them first. You go through that a few times and all kinds of lines can get really blurry. O think this also explains the paucity of convictions for soldiers obviously guilty of war crimes. It is simply not fair what we ask them to do. But there are situations were I see no alternative. ﻿ Do you know of any studies done of why soldiers commit war crimes. I am not referring to war crimes. In the "just war" framework of morality there are two elements: jus ad bellum (i.e. the right to engage in war) and "jus in bello" (i.e. the conduct in war). If both are followed, it can be considered a just war. This explicitly includes killing of opposition fighters (which, on the individual moral level would not justified) but implicitly also collateral deaths in civilians. Some argue that this makes the jus in bello a rather murky proposal. With regard to the Vietnam war, it is true that it is not a completely novel concept. After all, questioning the morality should not be that surprising. However, the just war hypothesis had a very strong foundation and it was still heavy in use for example to justify the Iraq war(s). 5 minutes ago, Outrider said: 3) Can you point me to any literature on this? I agree it is quite a conundrum. But didn't we try this with Vietnam already? Didn't we tell them how gulity they were when they returned home? Remember that most of these men were drafted. They got to choose between baby killer or deserter of ones country. I can dig out some literature, though my philosophy reading days are long over and I am not sure which books would be the right sources. The peace movement did indeed chip on the "just war" paradigm, but it has remained remarkably intact (and of course, quite a few vets joined the antiwar movement). It has been for example been used to justify the Iraq war(s). 13 minutes ago, Outrider said: I think it does happen that way some times. I think we both know it when we see it.﻿ My fear is that it would rather depend on where you are when a conflict escalates. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 37 minutes ago, Outrider said: I agree the only way a war could be considered moral is if it was conducted out of absolute necessity. I think it does happen that way some times. I think we both know it when we see it. I totally agree...I mean the world is full of ratbags, and the apologists for ratbags, and if one just happens to become a leader and proceed with immoral and unjust actions, something needs to be done, once negotiations and agreements fail. Quote I respect your opinion beecee but I just can't agree with this. I don't see morality as something that can be put on hold. Thanks, but I probably worded that poorly, as I agree totally with what you say. Quote When you get to the point of where violence is the only means of protecting yourself or others then violence becomes moral. IMO When all options have been implemented and the belligerence continues [as per Hitler in WW2] then yes, certainly humanity needs to act. Standing by, doing nothing and letting some ratbag bully such as Hitler have his way, is immoral. 22 minutes ago, CharonY said: However, the just war hypothesis had a very strong foundation and it was still heavy in use for example to justify the Iraq war(s). Wars that are morally unjust, will in general, have a barrier of some opposition. The Vietnam war as an example and Australia's participation in it was unjust and many moritorium marches took place in my country, of which I participated in one. Edited by beecee #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 7 minutes ago, CharonY said: I am﻿﻿ not referring to war crimes. In the "just war" framework of morality there are two elements: jus ad bellum (i.﻿e. the right to engage in war) and "jus in bello" (i.e. the conduct in war). If both are followed, it can be considered a ﻿just war. This explicitly includes killing of opposition fighters﻿ (which, on the individual moral level would not justified) ﻿but implicitly also collateral deaths in civilians. Some argue that this makes the jus in bello a rather murky proposal﻿﻿. I just don't see the alternative. I agree that some situations can be murky even for impartial observers. But in the Korean War situation I gave it seems pretty plain to me. Your choices are kill innocent children or give ground and power to those who have no problem killing innocents or otherwise using them in any way that pops into their head. Which is the moral choice? Is the world a better place with a divided Korea or would it be better if Kim had control over more people? 15 minutes ago, CharonY said: I can dig out some literature, though my philosophy reading﻿ days are long over and I am not sure which books would ﻿be the right sources. The peace movement did indeed chip on the "just war" paradigm, but it has remained remarkably intact (and of course, quite a few vets joined the﻿ antiwar movement). It has been for example been used to justify﻿ the ﻿Iraq war﻿(s). I can research it myself. I just thought you might have some online sources on hand. What is the alternative to the "just war" paradigm? Veterans did join the antiwar movement but I seriously doubt they ever questioned the morality of those doing the fighting except in the case of war crimes. 22 minutes ago, CharonY said: My﻿ fear﻿ is that it would rather depend on where you are when a conflict﻿ escalates﻿﻿﻿ Many times this is true but not always. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor what choice did the U.S. have? 12 minutes ago, beecee said: I totally﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ agree...I mean the world is full of ratbags, and the apologists for ratbags, and if one just happens to become a leader and proceed with immoral and unjust actions, something needs to be done, once negotiations and agreements fail. Agree. Wholeheartedly. 12 minutes ago, beecee said: When﻿﻿ all options have been implemented and the belligerence continues [as per Hitler in WW2] then yes, certainly ﻿humanity needs to act. Standing by, doing nothing and letting some﻿ ratbag﻿ bully such as Hitler have his way, is immoral. ﻿﻿ Agree. 13 minutes ago, beecee said: Wars﻿ that are morally unjust, will in general, have a barrier ﻿of some opposition. The Vietnam war as an example and Australia's participation in it was unjust and many ﻿moritorium marches took place in my country, of which I participated﻿ in ﻿one. I mostly agree but I do think our leaders had good intentions when we first got involved in Vietnam. But decisions were made, for political reasons, knowing more human suffering would result. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 27 minutes ago, Outrider said: Veterans did join the antiwar movement but I seriously doubt they ever questioned the morality of those doing the fighting except in the case of war crimes. I mostly agree but I do think our leaders had good intentions when we first got involved in Vietnam. But decisions were made, for political reasons, knowing more human suffering would result. When the Vietnam war concluded, and Australian troops came home, they were treated like lepers, so great was the anti war attitude in this country. Thank Christ though, that since those times, that treatment of Vietnam Veterans has disappeared, and on Anzac Day [held on 25th April every year in our country, actually to commemorate our greatest defeat in WW1 at Gallipolli ] they march proudly with what is left of their units and are applauded like any return servicemen. Anzac Day was not incorporated to glorify war...not in the least, rather to remember those that fell and did not return, and those that returned, with permanent injuries. We also have clubs open to all memberships,called RSL clubs [returned servicemen league] where to this day without fail, an "ode of remeberence' is read out every evening at 2100hrs without fail. "They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old; Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them." LEST WE FORGET; Edited by beecee #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 6 minutes ago, beecee said: When the Vietnam war concluded, and Australian troops came home, they were treated like lepers, so great was the anti war attitude in this country. Thank Christ though, that since those times, that treatment of Vietnam Veterans has disappeared, and on Anzac Day [held on 25th April every year in our country, actually to commemorate our greatest defeat in WW1 at Gallipolli ] they march proudly with what is left of their units and are applauded like any return servicemen. I did know that Australia participated but I did not know that your returning soldiers got the same treatment ours did. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 23 minutes ago, Outrider said: I just don't see the alternative. I agree that some situations can be murky even for impartial observers. But in the Korean War situation I gave it seems pretty plain to me. Your choices are kill innocent children or give ground and power to those who have no problem killing innocents or otherwise using them in any way that pops into their head. Which is the moral choice? I am not pretending that I actually know the answer to this question and in many cases I think that the outcome is better. However that would be in the end an utilitarian way to sort out morals. Certainly not wrong but also not trivially correct. As I mentioned, there are several frameworks out there (most of which I am not familiar with) to even start analyzing the morality of wars. I do have found a review on some of the discussions on just wars: Lazar, Annual Review of Political Science 20:27-54 2017, which is a nice compact read. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 12 minutes ago, CharonY said: I am not pretending that I actually know the answer to this question and in many cases I think that the outcome is better. However that would be in the end an utilitarian way to sort out morals. Certainly not wrong but also not trivially correct. As I mentioned, there are several frameworks out there (most of which I am not familiar with) to even start analyzing the morality of wars. I do have found a review on some of the discussions on just wars: Lazar, Annual Review of Political Science 20:27-54 2017, which is a nice compact read. Thanks Charon! I hope I am not coming across as thinking I know all the answers either because I certainly don't. I am interested in this in an intellectual way. But it is also an emotional issue for me because I know that most of the men and women doing the fighting would rather be doing anything else in the world. I hope I have mostly kept the emotion out of my replies and apologize if I haven't. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 1 hour ago, CharonY said: I am not pretending that I actually know the answer to this question and in many cases I think that the outcome is better. 43 minutes ago, Outrider said: Thanks Charon! I hope I am not coming across as thinking I know all the answers either because I certainly don't. Exactly!! No one knows the answer, particularly in the circumstance someone used re children being marched in front of advancing troops. How could any reasonable decent Soldier handle that! I can thank my lucky stars that I was born at the end of WW2, obviously too young for the Korean war, just missed out on conscription for the Vietnam war, and was too old for any participation in the Iraqy war. Truthfully, I don't know how I would act with bombs and bullets flying around me...I hope responsibly and if necessarilly, heroically, but I just don't know. Two points, most all wars are immoral and wrong, and with regards to WW2 the Allies really had no alternative with Hitler, Mussolini and Japan, other then to do what they did. The only question I would raise is the dropping of the Atomic bombs...just questioning though. The worrying thing for me is how close the Allies [Europe and the British Empire] came to losing the war....if the Brits had not invented radar, If the Luftwaffe had continued bombing military bases instead of switching to surban targets, if Hitler had not invaded the USSR, if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbour, if Hitler or Japan had of perfected the bomb first, if the Japanese had not been stopped on the Kokoda trail...the list goes on and on. Edited by beecee #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites The question can war be moral is philosophical. But the question should it be avoided if it is all possible is a practical one and the more important of the two. And on that we all agree. So here is a very hopeful 6 minute Kurzgesagt (german for "in a nutshell") video about how war may becoming (mostly) a thing of the past. 5 minutes ago, beecee said: Exactly﻿﻿!! No one knows the answer, particularly in the circumstance someone used re children being marched in front﻿ of advancing troops. How could any reasonable decent Soldier handle that! I can thank my lucky stars that I was born at the end of WW2, obviously too young for the Korean war, just missed out on conscription for the Vietnam war, and was too old for any participation in the Iraqy war. Truthfully, I don't know how I would act with bombs and bullets flying around me...I hope responsibly and if necessarilly, heroically, but ﻿I﻿ just﻿﻿ don't﻿ k﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿n﻿﻿ow﻿﻿.﻿ ﻿﻿ Yeah I was lucky that way myself. I fell between Nam and Iraq. My grandaddy was on Omaha Beach on D-Day and somehow survived. Two uncles I never knew died in Vietnam while my dad served as a conscientious objector. I served during peacetime and my son son took part in the so called war on terror as an MP moving prisoners around. I would go, beecee if I felt my country needed me but how I would react I don't know. I don't think anybody that hasn't been does. 27 minutes ago, beecee said: ﻿﻿﻿Two﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ points, most all wars﻿ ar﻿e﻿ immoral and ﻿wr﻿﻿﻿﻿o﻿ng, and with regards to WW2 the﻿ ﻿﻿﻿Allie﻿s reall﻿y had n﻿o ﻿﻿﻿﻿alte﻿rnative with Hitler, Mussolini and Japan﻿, other then to﻿ ﻿do﻿ what they did. The only question I would﻿ raise ﻿is the dro﻿pping of the Atomic bombs...just questioning ﻿though﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ I think us participating in WII was a good moral decision but dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was a horrible immoral decision. But in between that is the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I have struggled with that my whole life and I just don't have an answer for it. I am heavily emotionally invested in the answer to that question. Grandaddy was on a commandeered German luxury liner headed for Japan when they dropped it. I would have possibly never met him had they not dropped it. 29 minutes ago, beecee said: The﻿﻿ worrying thing for me is how close the Allies [Europe and the British Empire] came to losing the war....if the﻿ Brits had not invented radar, if Hitler had not invaded the USSR﻿, if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbour, if Hitler or Japan had of perfected the bomb first, if the Japanese had not ﻿been﻿ ﻿stopped on the Kokoda trail...the list goes on and on. ﻿﻿﻿ Yes it does indeed. Read up on the Navajo code talkers if you haven't heard of them. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites ! Moderator Note Please return to the topic. OT posts will continue to be removed, and we will be adding official warnings and other sanctions if this continues. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites On 2/13/2019 at 12:24 PM, Outrider said: I think us participating in WII was a good moral decision Probably actually the only moral decision that could have justly been made by firstly the British Empire, and then the USA. Quote but dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was a horrible immoral decision. I've read many thoughts on the dropping of the Nuclear bombs on Japan, and the possible alternatives, like giving them a demonstration as to the power of this new device. To this day, I'm still not 100% sure. Quote Grandaddy was on a commandeered German luxury liner headed for Japan when they dropped it. I would have possibly never met him had they not dropped it. My Uncle came home with money the Japanese had printed to use In Australia when they invaded, so confident were they.... #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites On 1/18/2019 at 2:15 PM, Sensei said: Nazis, slightly before, and during II world war used different tactics: "Thou shalt not kill" was understood as "Thou shalt not kill human".. Using such (incorrect) interpretation, human can kill somebody who is not human. Then they downgraded some races, some nations, some minorities, to the level "subhuman"... The same interpretation is used right now by many far-right conservatives, who have no objections for shooting animal for enjoy.. As the bible is quoted here, and the post has remained, seemingly unchallenged because of source, I shall use that same source to say what the bible says of war and violence: New Heart English Bible "In her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on the earth." Revelation 18:24 In reading the preceding verses we see that the 'her' spoken of was the beast Babylon .. 'the great men .. the merchants of the earth" their merchandise being 'gold and oil and cinnamon and spices and etc etc." Merchandise. It is obvious that all wars since the Hebrew invasion of the Promised Land in the bible have been to acquire wealth, those wars justified in many ways .. by race, false religion, need for defence of homelands, to steal water instead of buying it, from Hitler to Trump saying 'we are being attacked. Morality? Justification for acquisition of wealth by mass murder .. leading to the present world stage upon which nuclear WW3 is to be played out. MAD MAD MAD and Filthily greedy nations .. all having superabundance of all things yet insatiable in their hunger and thirst for $ and blood.

Edited by nymnpseudo
I was interrupted earlier.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nymnpseudo said:

by race, false religion, need for defence of homelands, to steal water instead of buying it, from Hitler to Trump saying 'we are being attacked.  Morality?

The main premise so far to come out of the subject matter of the OP, is that all wars are immoral by nature, but sometimes as in WW2 when bullies such as Hitler rise to power, and after negotiation, appeasements etc all fail, then it is also immoral not to help your fellow man and stop the bully, not withstanding other mentioned contrary to history superficial conspiracy like  accounts of what happened.

##### Share on other sites
13 hours ago, beecee said:

The main premise so far to come out of the subject matter of the OP, is that all wars are immoral by nature, but sometimes as in WW2 when bullies such as Hitler rise to power, and after negotiation, appeasements etc all fail, then it is also immoral not to help your fellow man and stop the bully, not withstanding other mentioned contrary to history superficial conspiracy like  accounts of what happened.

1

like we do today? North Korea et al .

##### Share on other sites
16 hours ago, nymnpseudo said:

As the bible is quoted here, and the post has remained, seemingly unchallenged because of source, I shall use that same source to say what the bible says of war and violence:  New Heart English Bible
"In her was found the blood of prophets and of ﻿saints, and of all who have been slain on the earth."  Revelation 18:24  .....

From the verse and bible you selectively quoted:

Quote

However much she glorified herself, and grew wanton, so much give her of torment and mourning. For she says in her heart, 'I sit a queen, and am no widow, and will in no way see mourning.' 8Therefore in one day her plagues will come: death, mourning, and famine; and she will be utterly burned with fire; for the Lord God who has judged her is strong.

Would it be fair to summarise that as 'Two eyes for an eye, two teeth for a tooth?'

or acquisition of wealth as the Lord God's justification for mass murder?

##### Share on other sites

When prophets and of ﻿saints people talk of justice terrible things happen.

Edited by dimreepr

##### Share on other sites

only when those who ca﻿l﻿l for war fight, is justice served.

Edited by dimreepr

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

like we do today? North Korea et al .

Not sure how that is relevant. Whatever injustices are being perpetrated on the North Korean people, is not spilling beyond its borders. And while that is undesirable, we have other means and diplomacy to consider before any thought of war. Obviously, any first step for change in North Korea need be by the people themselves

I also found this......

"These changes are irreversible and are being driven by the North Korean people at a grassroots level, creating pressure from the bottom up. The North Korean government has shown itself to be sensitive to these internal pressures and has demonstrated that it can react in both resistant or adaptive ways, but increased pressure from the bottom up will continue to force the government to find ways to respond, adapt or face the potential of more forceful change."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let's hope that change for the better does occur over time.

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, beecee said:

I also found this......

"These changes are irreversible and are being driven by the North Korean people at a grassroots level, creating pressure from the bottom up. The North Korean government has shown itself to be sensitive to these internal pressures and has demonstrated that it can react in both resistant or adaptive ways, but increased pressure from the bottom up will continue to force the government to find ways to respond, adapt or face the potential of more forceful change."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let's hope that change for the better does occur over time.

Indeed

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Not sure how that is relevant. Whatever injustices are being perpetrated on the North Korean people, is not spilling beyond its borders. And while that is undesirable, we have other means and diplomacy to consider before any thought of war. Obviously, any first step for change in North Korea need be by the people themselves

Was Hitler worse than Stalin?

We know what happens when we declare war on the bully and we know what happens when we don't, which one worked?

##### Share on other sites

We declare war on one bully and create another

## Create an account

Register a new account