Hey, it's Holocaust Remembrance Week
Check out this link
I know, you've heard it a million times before.
Faced with something like the NAZI phenomenon,
is it justifiable to respond with force?
The bombing of Dresden
But, on the other hand...
:cool:
Printable View
Hey, it's Holocaust Remembrance Week
Check out this link
I know, you've heard it a million times before.
Faced with something like the NAZI phenomenon,
is it justifiable to respond with force?
The bombing of Dresden
But, on the other hand...
:cool:
i think that al depends on your point of view... the nazi's were wrong, yes. but on the other hand, whose job is it to step in. all over the world there are people getting killed for the same reason, but these are third world countries and no one cares. i can not completely say one way or the other, but whose right is it to act violently.... and violence could have been avoided if things were nipped in the bud early through non-violent means. potentially anything could be stopped non-violently. i see violence as only necessary for self defense when all other means are exhausted... many of the countries involved were not defending themselves but others... a noble cause but slightly hypocritical. i think in the cse of the nazi's and hitler, violence prolly was the only answer, but only because it was too late when anyone tried to do anything about it.
and don't get me started about the holocaust... there are some crazy idea about that circulating.
This is a hard one. But I think sometimes we are called to combat evil with force. The biggest dilemna is how to combat evil without becoming evil yourself. Jesus said to "turn the other cheek." But that doesn't mean to let your wife be raped or to let an evil government slaughter other people. It's a hard call. No doubt about that.
I belive in minimum force at all times. Force may be used when there is no other way to avoid the thread to you or someone that can't respond with the force necessary to avoid an attack.Quote:
Originally posted here by rcgreen
Hey, it's Holocaust Remembrance Week
Check out this link
I know, you've heard it a million times before.
Faced with something like the NAZI phenomenon,
is it justifiable to respond with force?
The bombing of Dresden
But, on the other hand...
:cool:
When someone threatens the democracy with force I belive it is justifiable to respond with the force necessary. The same goes for using force on other nations that reigns its population in an undemocratic way.
I to not think, however that it is justifieble to bash nazis just cause they're nazis. Even though I want to. Badly.
Cheers,
just curious here... what makes democracy the only right way? who decided that a nation has to riegn over it's people democratically? every nation has the right to choose it's form of government. no one has the right to judge.Quote:
When someone threatens the democracy with force I belive it is justifiable to respond with the force necessary. The same goes for using force on other nations that reigns its population in an undemocratic way.
in one respect your right. every nation should be allowed to decide for itself, but a nation consists of its people. a nation is not the one in ten thousand that has a gun. if a government does not represent the wishs of the people, but rather is opposed to what they want and oppresses their wants and needs with violence, its a crime against the human race.
i believe you answered your own question here:
-------------------------------------
every nation has the right to choose it's form of government.
-------------------------------------
people choosing for themselves what their government will be is democracy, even if the form of gov. they choose is not democratic.
just for those who wont read the bombing of dresden article here is the deal:
durring WWII the alies decided that they werent being successfull, and they needed to break Germany's will to fight. to do this they picked a city in germany(Dresden) of incredible artistic signifigance and bombed it with white phosforus(sp?). they completely leveled the city. for those of you not familiar with those bombs, they are fire bombs...they fall then burn increadibly hot so there were some very painfull deaths involved(burning to death is not fun).
last simester i played a suite called "In Memorium of Dresden". that was the most emotional concert i've ever been a part of. knowing the back story, it is probably the single most powerfull piece of music i've ever heard, actually nearly brought me to tears on stage.
The thing is, democracy is the only form of government that [I]lets its people choose their form of government. Theoretically, I guess the best form of government would be a benevolent monarchy where the king always does what is right for his people. Of course, because of the evil in human hearts, we won't see that until Christ comes and sets up his kingdom.Quote:
Originally posted here by lord_darkside_x
just curious here... what makes democracy the only right way? who decided that a nation has to riegn over it's people democratically? every nation has the right to choose it's form of government. no one has the right to judge.
About the bombing of Dresden: often when people think of World War II they think of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But if I remember correctly, huge numbers of people were killed in Europe by conventional bombing. I could be wrong, but I think more people were killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo than were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If a government leader nowadays advocated bombing population centers they would be rightly turned out of office (at least I hope so).
I look forward to Christ's return when he will put an end to all war.
well i agree that democracy is the best form and humans have rights.but say a country has a dictator in power, what makes it our right to go tell them to do otherwise? we have no right, just because we have a democracy doesn't mean everyone else should. and you know what... we used to be under a form of overnment we didn't like... when the english were in control. we freed ourselves, no one came and freed us. also. look at this example, in afganastan, the taliban was in control, they were mean and evil, but they provided structure to the people. now many of the citizens after being free, don't like the responsibility... they miss the structure. i think it is best to let things play out as they should sometimes nad that it is not our right or anyones to say one form of gavernment is the only way to be.
ps- it is pretty hypocritical for america to "fight for democracy" and try to force people into a democratic government. AMERICA does not even HAVE a TRUE democracy.
When two people fight in a bar. I belive I have the right to step in and break them up so they don't hurt each other.Quote:
Originally posted here by lord_darkside_x
well i agree that democracy is the best form and humans have rights.but say a country has a dictator in power, what makes it our right to go tell them to do otherwise? we have no right, just because we have a democracy doesn't mean everyone else should. and you know what... we used to be under a form of overnment we didn't like... when the english were in control. we freed ourselves, no one came and freed us. also. look at this example, in afganastan, the taliban was in control, they were mean and evil, but they provided structure to the people. now many of the citizens after being free, don't like the responsibility... they miss the structure. i think it is best to let things play out as they should sometimes nad that it is not our right or anyones to say one form of gavernment is the only way to be.
ps- it is pretty hypocritical for america to "fight for democracy" and try to force people into a democratic government. AMERICA does not even HAVE a TRUE democracy.
When I come across something illegal, I belive I have the right to step in and make a citizens arrest.
When I see someone that can't fight for themselfs - a woman beeing abused by a man, an old man beeing robbed or whatever, I belive I have a right to step in and fight for them.
These are all situations where a judgement call is made based on moral principles and then acted upon.
I belive the same principles can be applied in politics or warfare. When something is downright evil, you always have the right to step in, take control and make it right.
The only thing to keep in mind here, I belive, is that the morality is different in different parts of the world and we have no right what so ever to step in anywhere just because we think something is wrong. There are however a declaration of human rights which I think most of the civilized wrold can agree to and these should be acted upon.
Anyway, I think you know what I mean so I'll just end here and go make some pasta or something ;)
Cheers,
...except for me. I reserve the right to judgeQuote:
no one has the right to judge.
__________________
Life is a beautiful thing... without it you'd be dead.
IMO, a "nation" is an abstraction. only individuals actually exist.
:cool:
i don't see anything wrong with fighting. if 2 people want to fight you should clear a space and let them go at it. the trouble with bar fights is bystanders get hurt and property gets destroyed.
----------------------------------------
look at this example, in afganastan, the taliban was in control, they were mean and evil, but they provided structure to the people. now many of the citizens after being free, don't like the responsibility... they miss the structure.
----------------------------------------
The taliban may have brought order to Afghanistan and the people there may have wanted that.
It’s the fact that the taliban actively advocated and supported our destruction that’s brought this upon them. Not the fact that we didn’t care for their internal polices.
----------------------------------------
just for those who wont read the bombing of dresden article here is the deal:
----------------------------------------
The German people brought Hitler to power. He didn’t force his way in, nor did he use deception. It was a choice they made. They thought it was fine and dandy while the buzz bombs were falling on England. An attempt to break the fighting sprit of the English people. Hell, they were the master race and this was just a means to an end. Oh! Poor, poor Dresden! Give me a break.
Anything the allied forces did during this war is fine by me.
Wow, what an interesting topic of conversation. When I think about the second world war the word genocide comes to mind.When I think genocide, I feel a very dark and strong evil. To destroy an entire race of people is EVIL. I notice non-belivers saying there is no such thing as "evil".I heard this opinion on Politicaly Incorrect. I easily laughed it off. Evil should be fought. What did Superman do? He fought Evil. Too bad BUSH is no Superman.
Let He Who Is Superman Intervien First.
i disagree... bin laden was not the taliban. there were more ways to get to bin laden then completely over throw the taliban governtment.Quote:
the taliban actively advocated and supported our destruction that’s brought this upon them. Not the fact that we didn’t care for their internal polices.
marality is relative though. i mean, someone who is a murderer may think that murder is morally right, where you disagree. and just because murder on a whole is not accepted as morally right but is actually accepted as morally wrong. but just because something is accepted by a majority does not make it so. really it all depends on the position you are in.Quote:
These are all situations where a judgement call is made based on moral principles and then acted upon.
lord_darkside_x
I know Bin Ladin was not Taliban but the Taliban actively supported and defended Bin Laden. They were in favor of our destruction. They danced in the streets in support of his deeds and the taliban government praised god for it.
You say there are ways we could have gotten him out, other than take out the taliban.
Then let me put this to you. Shots are being fired at you and your family from ‘the house across the street’. You go to this house to stop it and the landlord stops you at the door, saying you can’t go in, you have no proof. Meanwhile shots are still being fired at your wife and children. What do you do?
If you say, in that case you’d call the police and wait for them to stop it, you’d be full of ****. You’d knock that man down and get the person who was trying to kill your loved ones.
As far as morality being relative…morality had nothing to do with ww2.
The axis powers were trying to take over the world and eliminate everyone they didn’t like. There was no moral decision to be made.
my morality is relative has nothing to do with world war 2 or anything you said... it had to do with what Mankan said. as for knocking the man over... i would consider knocking him over yes... but i would not kill him. i would not shoot him in the face to get to the people. there is a difference between necessary force and unnecessary force. as for the people dancing in the street and such, they have every right to. they hated it us, and for relatively good reason in their opinion. we had people cheering when we bombed the taliban, as i said all relative to position. because the people were happy that there was attack against us does not mean we should kill them. and in turn... when we did choose to fight the taliban, there was no reason to threaten iraq, iran, north korea, or china in the process, which we did, this had nothing to do with the war. If the president and his advisors don't watch their asses... america could be in a hell of a lot of trouble.
Quote:
Originally posted here by lord_darkside_x
well i agree that democracy is the best form and humans have rights.but say a country has a dictator in power, what makes it our right to go tell them to do otherwise? we have no right, just because we have a democracy doesn't mean everyone else should. and you know what... we used to be under a form of overnment we didn't like... when the english were in control. we freed ourselves, no one came and freed us. also. look at this example, in afganastan, the taliban was in control, they were mean and evil, but they provided structure to the people. now many of the citizens after being free, don't like the responsibility... they miss the structure. i think it is best to let things play out as they should sometimes nad that it is not our right or anyones to say one form of gavernment is the only way to be.
ps- it is pretty hypocritical for america to "fight for democracy" and try to force people into a democratic government. AMERICA does not even HAVE a TRUE democracy.
I can't remember who said this, but it comes to mind (I may be screwing up this quote, but here goes): "All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing." I think sometimes we do have a moral obligation to intervene when we see injustice. If a people are under an oppressive goverment, we should help them if they want our help.
Now, it is true even oppressive rulers have their benefits. They do provide structure. But it is a truth of human nature that some people would rather follow dictators who lay out all the rules instead of allowing people to think for themselves. Freedom can be scary. But if people are to grow and become what God wants them to be, freedom even with it's uncertainity and lack of preset directions is necessary.
And it is true that America is not a true democracy in the classical sense of the word. We are a representative democracy. We elect representatives who (theoretically) are responsible for governing.
Even with it's faults, I still think we have the best system of government in the world. In how many countries would the presidential election debacle between Mr. Gore and President Bush
have had a peaceful ending under the same circumstances? That's my opinion.
lord_darkside_x
My apologies!
I realize your statements on relative morality were aimed at mankin, I should have done the same with my statement. Im sorry!
Speaking for myself:
If the man in the doorway resisted, I would take whatever force was necessary to get him out of my way as quickly as possible, if he got killed in the process, that’s what he gets. We all must protect our own.
I have not celebrated, nor have I seen, or heard of any celebrating at the bombing of afganistan, we do not praise god for there deaths. This is a grim task.
I share my country’s opinion that the taliban assisted bin laden by giving him asylum. Allowing him to perpetrate many such acts as 911 in many places around the world. Enough is enough and may god keep anyone who tries to help him, cause there’s no place for them here.
Maybe you would feel differently if the ‘fourth plane’ wasn’t downed before it reached philly.
I do think we should concern ourselves with ourselves and keep our noses out of other nations affairs. Unfortunately BL and the gang is our affair. When this is over we should get rid of the people currently running this nation or should I say the two groups that always achieve the same goal no matter who you vote for. This 2 party system has got to go.
i agree we need to deal with bin laden... don't get me wrong. but i do not think overthrowing a government. esp. since the taliban was in the white house talking with dick chaney a month before 9/11. this was a talk about running a pipe line from uzbekastan through afganastan for oil (owned by exxon), which the taliban disapproved. currently now, the pipe is under construction now that the taliban is no longer in power. i don't think that it was necessary to over throw them that's for sure.
I'm currently reading the autobiography of Bertrand Russel and found in it a few passages last night, that I though worth sharing in this thread.
On the threat of war aginst soviet during the cold war:
"This advice of mine is still brought against me. It is easy to understand why Communists might object to it. But the usual criticism is that, I, a pacifist, once advokated the threat of war. It seems to cut no ice that I have reiterated ad nauseum that I am not a pacifist, that I belive that some wars, a very few, are justified, even necessary. They are usually necessery because matters have permitted to drag on their obviously evil way till no peaceful means can stop them. Nor do my critics appear to consider the evils that have developed as a result of the continued Cold War itself, had my advice to threaten war been taken in 1948."
On the bombing of Dresden:
"This complete destruction was due partly to the English and partly to the Russians, and it seemed to me monstrous. Contemplation of the less accountable razing od Dresden by my own countrymen sickened me. I felt that when the Germans were obviously about to surrender thatwas enough, and that to destroy not only 135,000 Germans but also their houses and countless treasures was barbarous."
One inevitable fact of the passage of timeQuote:
is that the eyewitnesses all eventually
die off. The job of writing history changes
as you get further away from the events.
Revisionism is perhaps the second stage
of historical writing, the "eyewitness stage
having been the first.
There are tons of documents and artifacts
from that period still to be studied.
Future generations of scholars will
still make careers of this material
for a long time.
Anyway, the "holocaust deniers" haven't
convinced me.
:cool:
Jethro,
Care to explain why you believe that a deliberate extermination policy of Jews didn’t exist, that gas chambers are a myth, and that although lots of Jews died, the deaths weren’t proportionally more than other groups?
I assume you know there's only one rule on the Cosmos-forum: no racist bullshit. Besides, what's the point of just stating what you are, without justifying yourself? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and wait for you to come up with something... It'd better be good.
Mankan,
may I recommend Russell's 'Human Knowledge'? Topics included: logic, philosophy of nature, religion, and the organisation of civilization...
Negative: Actually, I'm waiting for it to arrive from Amazon along with "The history of Western Philosophy" :)
Jethro: My girlfriend's grandmother was actually saved right out of the gaschamber at one point in a consentration camp, because of a malfunction. She is still alive to tell the story so don't you dare talk about them not existing.