"The end justifies the means"

[Sgt. Dante]

Very much depends on the means used and the end met... most cases would be unique and therefore should be individually weighed.

 

[Kuweekee]

I don't thin the end can justify the means, in my opinion something evil done for the good reason is still evil.

 

[stompy]

What kind of end will it be if the means are what we, as society, abhor? To me, the adage is too easy to abuse, and thus, I'm against it. Then again, I'm not a fan of utilitarianism.

 

[DoW Lowen]

It's all circumstantial. Killing to save your family is arguably acceptable, killing to get that last jar of peanut butter sightly less acceptable.

That's the difference between amoral and immoral. Being amoral is fine, in my opinion it's better than being moral. Logic is a sturdier foundation than outdated notions of right and wrong.

We don't live in a perfect world, so if you act like we do and treat everyone virtuously you're bound to get burnt. Promises may have to be broken, people may have to die to prevent further suffering. That said there's no need to be immoral and kill just for the sake of it or for petty reasons. Don't seek to be loved or to be hated, seek to be remembered as realistic. Be amoral.

Actually I don't have any insecurity issues, I was just saying I don't think many circumstances warrant slaughter for peanut butter. But you're mostly correct regardless. But amorality is as subjective as morality. When logic fails, we rely on virtues and our own emotional perceptions on a subject. Realistically, you cannot judge everything from a logical standpoint. Immorality, morality and amorality are all matters of opinion. And there are rarely any circumstances where it is universally agreed that a course of action is the most correct (hope that makes sense). Killing, genocide, rape, murder and war is one man's evil, but is justifiable to another person depending on the situation.

But yeah... don't kill for peanut butter.

 

[theultimateend]

Someone once said it. Do you, the public agree? or do you think its the other way around (the means justify the end)? personally, i think it's the latter.

It's entirely situation based.

However as a whole either way is a stupid ass outlook on life.

Anything that explains everything explains absolutely nothing.

Do you believe the end *can* justify the means?

Yes very much so. I'll use the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an example, that's what most people went with for this.

Imagine you are President Truman, before you are two options, the Invasion of Japan by Allied Forces (Russia, Britain, Australia and the US) and then on the other hand you have the choice of using a new weapon of unparalleled destruction. Before making your choice look at what you know about the Japanese Military mind set.

From the get go you have seen the Japanese continuously throw men at your firing line, charging you most of the time with little more than bolt action rifles, while you have machine guns, carbines, sub machine guns and semi automatics. You know from your reports that they send these men in waves until they have no men left, and generally you have sustained a fair amount of casualties as well.

Now you look at the fact that many of the military will willingly hide in holes with bombs to blow up your tanks, or crash planes in to your ships in order to sink them, while the rest would rather commit suicide than allow themselves to be captured. Then take in that its not just the military that commits suicide to avoid capture but civilians as well, and this isn't even on the home islands. Judging by the way the rest of the war has been its possible you find it safe to assume that the same will happen during a mass invasion.

Finally look at one of your own allies the Soviet Union, they have a long standing rivalry with the Empire of Japan and have fought several conflicts with them in the past and have even dealt with them attacking your territories close to China, where they killed large amounts of civilians. Look then to how the Soviets acted during their invasion of Germany, that mass amounts of rapes and murders that took place in that time, it could happen here as well. Not to mention that you don't want to see Japan split the same way as Germany was.

Now look at option B, drop an Atomic Bomb on them, if that doesn't work drop another and should that fail, you've still got option A to fall back on. But you could hope that the power of these bombs could scare the enemy into surrender out of fear that the same would happen every where in their nation, what do you choose?

Me I go for option B, sure it could fail, but you're showing the enemy that you aren't fooling around.

I've read very few world war II books that weren't made right after the war that agree dropping the nukes was a good or necessary idea.

Japan was already extremely shakey (which is why the nukes worked I imagine) and frankly the youth of Japan have been reportedly shown to have not given a shit about the Emperor. Likewise Hiroshima and Nagasake had absolutely no military input into the War.

Then again the fire bombings of Japan nearly killed as many people as the atomic bombs did. What I've always found to be a shame is the way war is done.

You should try your best not to kill the man firing the rockets, you should try to kill the person commanding the man firing the rockets. In most cases that man firing the rockets doesn't want to be doing it but must. Much like most Russians were told "Either the Germans will kill you or I will" by Stalin.

The Japanese Soldiers committed great atrocities in China, The German Soldiers committed great atrocities across Europe, The Italians weren't exactly being kind in Greece or Egypt, and the Allied treatment of Civilians in all locations was hardly heroic.

Likewise WWII was inevitable after the Treaty of Versailles (think that was the name), if you plummet a country into great poverty, you will always spawn some great terror. Because when parents will go to great extents to save their children from starvation, they'll believe someone can come back from death, they'll believe that blowing themselves up will bring their family food, and likewise they'll support any charismatic person who promises them an escape.

Anywho, I'm 100% sure someones going to run in and say that the bombs were necessary. But considering the state of the Japanese military near the end of the war (pre bombs) was so pathetic and every course I've taken since High School and every book I've read has said that the support for the Emperor was tanking hard.

Should have just proven the emperor wasn't immortal, that would have been the quickest way to break the already shaky support. But when you have some shiny new technology that you haven't tested in the field there is a strong desire to do so.

Look at every war since, every time the US invents something neat they gotta try it. Currently it appears the real popular toy is unmanned attack drones . We'll probably stay in Iraq and Afghanistan till those toys get boring.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

It's all circumstantial. Killing to save your family is arguably acceptable, killing to get that last jar of peanut butter sightly less acceptable.

That's the difference between amoral and immoral. Being amoral is fine, in my opinion it's better than being moral. Logic is a sturdier foundation than outdated notions of right and wrong.

We don't live in a perfect world, so if you act like we do and treat everyone virtuously you're bound to get burnt. Promises may have to be broken, people may have to die to prevent further suffering. That said there's no need to be immoral and kill just for the sake of it or for petty reasons. Don't seek to be loved or to be hated, seek to be remembered as realistic. Be amoral.

Actually I don't have any insecurity issues, I was just saying I don't think many circumstances warrant slaughter for peanut butter. But you're mostly correct regardless. But amorality is as subjective as morality. When logic fails, we rely on virtues and our own emotional perceptions on a subject. Realistically, you cannot judge everything from a logical standpoint. Immorality, morality and amorality are all matters of opinion. And there are rarely any circumstances where it is universally agreed that a course of action is the most correct (hope that makes sense). Killing, genocide, rape, murder and war is one man's evil, but is justifiable to another person depending on the situation.

But yeah... don't kill for peanut butter.

I see your point, it is all relative and depends on circumstance and the individual.

This is a bit off-topic but I'm allergic to peanuts, so if I killed for peanut butter I would be signing my own death warrant anyway!

 

[DoW Lowen]

Do you believe the end *can* justify the means?

Yes very much so. I'll use the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an example, that's what most people went with for this.

Imagine you are President Truman, before you are two options, the Invasion of Japan by Allied Forces (Russia, Britain, Australia and the US) and then on the other hand you have the choice of using a new weapon of unparalleled destruction. Before making your choice look at what you know about the Japanese Military mind set.

From the get go you have seen the Japanese continuously throw men at your firing line, charging you most of the time with little more than bolt action rifles, while you have machine guns, carbines, sub machine guns and semi automatics. You know from your reports that they send these men in waves until they have no men left, and generally you have sustained a fair amount of casualties as well.

Now you look at the fact that many of the military will willingly hide in holes with bombs to blow up your tanks, or crash planes in to your ships in order to sink them, while the rest would rather commit suicide than allow themselves to be captured. Then take in that its not just the military that commits suicide to avoid capture but civilians as well, and this isn't even on the home islands. Judging by the way the rest of the war has been its possible you find it safe to assume that the same will happen during a mass invasion.

Finally look at one of your own allies the Soviet Union, they have a long standing rivalry with the Empire of Japan and have fought several conflicts with them in the past and have even dealt with them attacking your territories close to China, where they killed large amounts of civilians. Look then to how the Soviets acted during their invasion of Germany, that mass amounts of rapes and murders that took place in that time, it could happen here as well. Not to mention that you don't want to see Japan split the same way as Germany was.

Now look at option B, drop an Atomic Bomb on them, if that doesn't work drop another and should that fail, you've still got option A to fall back on. But you could hope that the power of these bombs could scare the enemy into surrender out of fear that the same would happen every where in their nation, what do you choose?

Me I go for option B, sure it could fail, but you're showing the enemy that you aren't fooling around.

Sorry for the double post...

Anyway, how well do you know your history?

Japan was going to surrender anyway, Germany had failed there assault in Europe, the Allies had surrounded Asia, they were going to lose the war. Japan would have surrendered regardless. The real reason the Atomic bomb was released was because of the following

1) Project Manhattan had been going on for a quite sometime. They needed an excuse to see if it would work. So they deemed that Hiroshima was a front for a cache of hidden weapons and ammunition (this has never been proven), and used it as a target.

2) The allies knew they would win the war, and Stalin was a true threat to American power over in Europe. It was a show of power and Stalin knew this, in a meeting between the Allied powers, Truman had told Stalin of the atomic bomb hoping this would deter the Soviet union. But Stalin had already felt threatened and had created a major defensive front on east Germany in case of allied assault.

To those talking about whether the nuclear bomb was good against the Japanese. The answer is no. Read up on your cold war history, and I don't mean Wikipedia, I mean grab textbooks and go to your library. You'll see the truth on the matter.

 

[theultimateend]

Do you believe the end *can* justify the means?

Yes very much so. I'll use the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an example, that's what most people went with for this.

Imagine you are President Truman, before you are two options, the Invasion of Japan by Allied Forces (Russia, Britain, Australia and the US) and then on the other hand you have the choice of using a new weapon of unparalleled destruction. Before making your choice look at what you know about the Japanese Military mind set.

From the get go you have seen the Japanese continuously throw men at your firing line, charging you most of the time with little more than bolt action rifles, while you have machine guns, carbines, sub machine guns and semi automatics. You know from your reports that they send these men in waves until they have no men left, and generally you have sustained a fair amount of casualties as well.

Now you look at the fact that many of the military will willingly hide in holes with bombs to blow up your tanks, or crash planes in to your ships in order to sink them, while the rest would rather commit suicide than allow themselves to be captured. Then take in that its not just the military that commits suicide to avoid capture but civilians as well, and this isn't even on the home islands. Judging by the way the rest of the war has been its possible you find it safe to assume that the same will happen during a mass invasion.

Finally look at one of your own allies the Soviet Union, they have a long standing rivalry with the Empire of Japan and have fought several conflicts with them in the past and have even dealt with them attacking your territories close to China, where they killed large amounts of civilians. Look then to how the Soviets acted during their invasion of Germany, that mass amounts of rapes and murders that took place in that time, it could happen here as well. Not to mention that you don't want to see Japan split the same way as Germany was.

Now look at option B, drop an Atomic Bomb on them, if that doesn't work drop another and should that fail, you've still got option A to fall back on. But you could hope that the power of these bombs could scare the enemy into surrender out of fear that the same would happen every where in their nation, what do you choose?

Me I go for option B, sure it could fail, but you're showing the enemy that you aren't fooling around.

Sorry for the double post...

Anyway, how well do you know your history?

Japan was going to surrender anyway, Germany had failed there assault in Europe, the Allies had surrounded Asia, they were going to lose the war. Japan would have surrendered regardless. The real reason the Atomic bomb was released was because of the following

1) Project Manhattan had been going on for a quite sometime. They needed an excuse to see if it would work. So they deemed that Hiroshima was a front for a cache of hidden weapons and ammunition (this has never been proven), and used it as a target.

2) The allies knew they would win the war, and Stalin was a true threat to American power over in Europe. It was a show of power and Stalin knew this, in a meeting between the Allied powers, Truman had told Stalin of the atomic bomb hoping this would deter the Soviet union. But Stalin had already felt threatened and had created a major defensive front on east Germany in case of allied assault.

To those talking about whether the nuclear bomb was good against the Japanese. The answer is no. Read up on your cold war history, and I don't mean Wikipedia, I mean grab textbooks and go to your library. You'll see the truth on the matter.

Holy crap another person that has read about WWII after Junior high! OMG!

I'd hug you if it weren't creepy.

Ask the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that question and see what kind of answers you get.

Well OF COURSE the individual is going to feel the pinch. We're talking about the grand scheme of things here.

So what is an individual in this case? A whole country affected by the decision? Practically every country since considering it wrong? It's not just one individual from Hiroshima complaining, you know.

How do you know that the total of losses overall would not have been higher if Japan wasn't bombed? I kinda agree that it was a total dick move, but it could have end up much worse.

It's all perception based, arguing about philosophy is truly a waste of time. I'd say that the end does justify the means in many cases. But there are too many variables left out. Would I agree that the end justifies the means in terms of killing a random person who has a chocolate bar because I want to eat it? Probably not, it seems rather wasteful.

Would I agree with the idea of ends justifying means if shooting your own commander in a war could lead to victory for your side of conflict or at least peace? Yes, I'm pretty sure.

You can argue about this shit forever, and it's not going to be worth anything.

It's not really perception based. The statement that was made that it would save American lives was right up there with the rest of the propaganda about Japan and the war (Like the necessity of land invasion on the islands leading to Japan that cost the lives of many times more people than Pearl Harbor). My brain is fried so I'm forgetting their names but it was entirely unnecessary.

For instance they had a land invasion on one of the islands where Japanese were hiding in caves. Now for a bit of backstory. When Berlin was carpet bombed those who were hiding in bomb shelters died. Not because they were killed by the bombs but because the massive firestorm above them sucked all the air out of the bomb shelters and left them suffocating in front of their children (and their children in front of them). There are some pretty sad photos of mother's holding their children dead staring (both dead).

Now this SAME tactic could have been used in that situation. But for the sake of symbolism they sacrificed the lives of many US soldiers to do a land invasion.

 

[samsprinkle]

yes they do.

 

[DoW Lowen]

\

Sorry for the double post...

Anyway, how well do you know your history?

Japan was going to surrender anyway, Germany had failed there assault in Europe, the Allies had surrounded Asia, they were going to lose the war. Japan would have surrendered regardless. The real reason the Atomic bomb was released was because of the following

1) Project Manhattan had been going on for a quite sometime. They needed an excuse to see if it would work. So they deemed that Hiroshima was a front for a cache of hidden weapons and ammunition (this has never been proven), and used it as a target.

2) The allies knew they would win the war, and Stalin was a true threat to American power over in Europe. It was a show of power and Stalin knew this, in a meeting between the Allied powers, Truman had told Stalin of the atomic bomb hoping this would deter the Soviet union. But Stalin had already felt threatened and had created a major defensive front on east Germany in case of allied assault.

To those talking about whether the nuclear bomb was good against the Japanese. The answer is no. Read up on your cold war history, and I don't mean Wikipedia, I mean grab textbooks and go to your library. You'll see the truth on the matter.

Holy crap another person that has read about WWII after Junior high! OMG!

I'd hug you if it weren't creepy.[/quote]

You can hug me, I don't mind ^^

 

[LewsTherin]

I say they do not.
Argument 1: Stealing for food: Get a job and work your way up. If that isn't an option, go somewhere else. If that isn't an option, your life would pretty much be so hellish that death wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Argument 2: killing to save loved ones: Would they be comfortable with you knowing that you are mentally capable of taking the life of another human being, causing irrefutable loss for the members of their family and loved ones? Everyone is someones son/daughter/sister/brother/wife/husband/father/mother....

Argument 3: History will only see The War is Over! instead of Innumerable Civilians Killed In Blast: History might not see it, but you will know, and you will have to live with that for the rest of your life. I'd like to talk to the guys who fired of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and see how they feel about what they did.

 

[theultimateend]

\

Sorry for the double post...

Anyway, how well do you know your history?

Japan was going to surrender anyway, Germany had failed there assault in Europe, the Allies had surrounded Asia, they were going to lose the war. Japan would have surrendered regardless. The real reason the Atomic bomb was released was because of the following

1) Project Manhattan had been going on for a quite sometime. They needed an excuse to see if it would work. So they deemed that Hiroshima was a front for a cache of hidden weapons and ammunition (this has never been proven), and used it as a target.

2) The allies knew they would win the war, and Stalin was a true threat to American power over in Europe. It was a show of power and Stalin knew this, in a meeting between the Allied powers, Truman had told Stalin of the atomic bomb hoping this would deter the Soviet union. But Stalin had already felt threatened and had created a major defensive front on east Germany in case of allied assault.

To those talking about whether the nuclear bomb was good against the Japanese. The answer is no. Read up on your cold war history, and I don't mean Wikipedia, I mean grab textbooks and go to your library. You'll see the truth on the matter.

Holy crap another person that has read about WWII after Junior high! OMG!

I'd hug you if it weren't creepy.

You can hug me, I don't mind ^^[/quote]

*digi-hugs*

I remember one of my first professors for WWII History (it's one of those repeatable courses X amount of times). He changed my entire understanding of WWII. We read countless literature from across the world and noted the common similarities and likewise we saw the really consistent view each nation took against its enemies (everyone had the same basic strategy to dehumanizing their foes). It's also fun to watch the progression of information in the US as censorship in relation to the war start to loosen up (it was mostly self induced because most people refused to accept anything but the initial propaganda for a good while).

The reason I love Warhammer 40k (The tabletopgame + story) is that it helps people see that in its purest form, war never has any heroes. The closest thing you have is a person or group of people trying to redeem themselves for the terrible acts they had made before.

That to me is how the US worked into WWII. A collection of bad deeds (done with friends) leading up to WWII had to be made up for.

I also have a feeling part of Japan's plan when invading China was to get to the 'Russia stage'. Become a nation that the US despises but be far too large for us to actually deal with. It makes Pearl harbor make tons of sense. You have a nation that has frozen all your us funds, told you your gold supply is worth a fraction of any other nation (high levels of racism towards asians), and that they would never receive another ounce of Oil.

So Japan has roughly 2 years worth of Oil, they try to destroy the Pacific Fleet to give them the most time possible to invade and conquer China (and other Asian countries). This way they have a big stepping stone to being able to self sustain themselves.

I can't recall who it was though but just after the attack of Pearl Harbor the guy essentially said "We have already lost." Unlike Germany, the Japanese had a pretty good idea of how big the US was.

Which is actually kind of funny, how many people here realized that when Hitler declared war on the US he had no idea it was even a fraction as large as it actually is. Talk about a reality check .

 

[theultimateend]

I say they do not.
Argument 1: Stealing for food: Get a job and work your way up. If that isn't an option, go somewhere else. If that isn't an option, your life would pretty much be so hellish that death wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Argument 2: killing to save loved ones: Would they be comfortable with you knowing that you are mentally capable of taking the life of another human being, causing irrefutable loss for the members of their family and loved ones? Everyone is someones son/daughter/sister/brother/wife/husband/father/mother....

Argument 3: History will only see The War is Over! instead of Innumerable Civilians Killed In Blast: History might not see it, but you will know, and you will have to live with that for the rest of your life. I'd like to talk to the guys who fired of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and see how they feel about what they did.

Well I have nothing on the last one (since I've said it before).

Your first argument is far too simple on the subject. But the fact that you said what you said means that NOTHING I'll say will change your view so I won't say a thing. I just feel that's an extremely naive look on it.

As for the second one, if you are at the point where you are killing other people's loved ones, your family has likely already lost you so when you die the compounded effect is not much greater (not an infinitive mind you, there are special cases). However if you are willing to kill to protect your family you have already established that you have not given up on them.

Unless you are willing to argue that you'd stand by and watch someone murder your family because you don't want to hurt their family's feelings. Which might be true, I don't know you so I won't make assumptions.

Keeping in mind I am not referring to war, there are so many things wrong before, during, and after war that its a totally different subject. I'm talking about domestic events.

 

[DoW Lowen]

Sorry for the double post...

Anyway, how well do you know your history?

Japan was going to surrender anyway, Germany had failed there assault in Europe, the Allies had surrounded Asia, they were going to lose the war. Japan would have surrendered regardless. The real reason the Atomic bomb was released was because of the following

1) Project Manhattan had been going on for a quite sometime. They needed an excuse to see if it would work. So they deemed that Hiroshima was a front for a cache of hidden weapons and ammunition (this has never been proven), and used it as a target.

2) The allies knew they would win the war, and Stalin was a true threat to American power over in Europe. It was a show of power and Stalin knew this, in a meeting between the Allied powers, Truman had told Stalin of the atomic bomb hoping this would deter the Soviet union. But Stalin had already felt threatened and had created a major defensive front on east Germany in case of allied assault.

To those talking about whether the nuclear bomb was good against the Japanese. The answer is no. Read up on your cold war history, and I don't mean Wikipedia, I mean grab textbooks and go to your library. You'll see the truth on the matter.

Holy crap another person that has read about WWII after Junior high! OMG!

I'd hug you if it weren't creepy.

You can hug me, I don't mind ^^

*digi-hugs*

I remember one of my first professors for WWII History (it's one of those repeatable courses X amount of times). He changed my entire understanding of WWII. We read countless literature from across the world and noted the common similarities and likewise we saw the really consistent view each nation took against its enemies (everyone had the same basic strategy to dehumanizing their foes). It's also fun to watch the progression of information in the US as censorship in relation to the war start to loosen up (it was mostly self induced because most people refused to accept anything but the initial propaganda for a good while).

The reason I love Warhammer 40k (The tabletopgame + story) is that it helps people see that in its purest form, war never has any heroes. The closest thing you have is a person or group of people trying to redeem themselves for the terrible acts they had made before.

That to me is how the US worked into WWII. A collection of bad deeds (done with friends) leading up to WWII had to be made up for.

I also have a feeling part of Japan's plan when invading China was to get to the 'Russia stage'. Become a nation that the US despises but be far too large for us to actually deal with. It makes Pearl harbor make tons of sense. You have a nation that has frozen all your us funds, told you your gold supply is worth a fraction of any other nation (high levels of racism towards asians), and that they would never receive another ounce of Oil.

So Japan has roughly 2 years worth of Oil, they try to destroy the Pacific Fleet to give them the most time possible to invade and conquer China (and other Asian countries). This way they have a big stepping stone to being able to self sustain themselves.

I can't recall who it was though but just after the attack of Pearl Harbor the guy essentially said "We have already lost." Unlike Germany, the Japanese had a pretty good idea of how big the US was.

Which is actually kind of funny, how many people here realized that when Hitler declared war on the US he had no idea it was even a fraction as large as it actually is. Talk about a reality check .

My very first history lecturer had told me "never believe anybody, especially me". I never really knew what he meant until I began studying the Cold War. People's perception on the events of World War II are so clouded by what they see in movies and games that they forget what they see is all produced from the same country. America.

You're right, in times of war there are no heroes. In WH40k, everybody is an asshole especially the Imperium (except for Eldar, they rock my galactic socks). In war the population is made to believe that enemy and their citizens are vicious beasts who will kill your children without a second thought, and this why many people are able to commit war crimes. That and because the authorities told them to. War is an ugly beast, yet on so many levels it is justifiable like what is happening in Palestine. But yet again those events are clear proof of propaganda. Many stand against Israel, despite the fault mainly lying upon Palestine. The Israelis are seen as warmongers for bombing schools and mosques and yet the media fails to mention how the Palestinians had hid there weapons in these very structures. My lecturer was right, never believe anybody.

Edit: Wow I don't know how I stuffed that quote up so badly.

 

[theultimateend]

Sorry for the double post...

Anyway, how well do you know your history?

Japan was going to surrender anyway, Germany had failed there assault in Europe, the Allies had surrounded Asia, they were going to lose the war. Japan would have surrendered regardless. The real reason the Atomic bomb was released was because of the following

1) Project Manhattan had been going on for a quite sometime. They needed an excuse to see if it would work. So they deemed that Hiroshima was a front for a cache of hidden weapons and ammunition (this has never been proven), and used it as a target.

2) The allies knew they would win the war, and Stalin was a true threat to American power over in Europe. It was a show of power and Stalin knew this, in a meeting between the Allied powers, Truman had told Stalin of the atomic bomb hoping this would deter the Soviet union. But Stalin had already felt threatened and had created a major defensive front on east Germany in case of allied assault.

To those talking about whether the nuclear bomb was good against the Japanese. The answer is no. Read up on your cold war history, and I don't mean Wikipedia, I mean grab textbooks and go to your library. You'll see the truth on the matter.

Holy crap another person that has read about WWII after Junior high! OMG!

I'd hug you if it weren't creepy.

You can hug me, I don't mind ^^

*digi-hugs*

I remember one of my first professors for WWII History (it's one of those repeatable courses X amount of times). He changed my entire understanding of WWII. We read countless literature from across the world and noted the common similarities and likewise we saw the really consistent view each nation took against its enemies (everyone had the same basic strategy to dehumanizing their foes). It's also fun to watch the progression of information in the US as censorship in relation to the war start to loosen up (it was mostly self induced because most people refused to accept anything but the initial propaganda for a good while).

The reason I love Warhammer 40k (The tabletopgame + story) is that it helps people see that in its purest form, war never has any heroes. The closest thing you have is a person or group of people trying to redeem themselves for the terrible acts they had made before.

That to me is how the US worked into WWII. A collection of bad deeds (done with friends) leading up to WWII had to be made up for.

I also have a feeling part of Japan's plan when invading China was to get to the 'Russia stage'. Become a nation that the US despises but be far too large for us to actually deal with. It makes Pearl harbor make tons of sense. You have a nation that has frozen all your us funds, told you your gold supply is worth a fraction of any other nation (high levels of racism towards asians), and that they would never receive another ounce of Oil.

So Japan has roughly 2 years worth of Oil, they try to destroy the Pacific Fleet to give them the most time possible to invade and conquer China (and other Asian countries). This way they have a big stepping stone to being able to self sustain themselves.

I can't recall who it was though but just after the attack of Pearl Harbor the guy essentially said "We have already lost." Unlike Germany, the Japanese had a pretty good idea of how big the US was.

Which is actually kind of funny, how many people here realized that when Hitler declared war on the US he had no idea it was even a fraction as large as it actually is. Talk about a reality check .

My very first history lecturer had told me "never believe anybody, especially me". I never really knew what he meant until I began studying the Cold War. People's perception on the events of World War II are so clouded by what they see in movies and games that they forget what they see is all produced from the same country. America.

You're right, in times of war there are no heroes. In WH40k, everybody is an asshole especially the Imperium (except for Eldar, they rock my galactic socks). In war the population is made to believe that enemy and their citizens are vicious beasts who will kill your children without a second thought, and this why many people are able to commit war crimes. That and because the authorities told them to. War is an ugly beast, yet on so many levels it is justifiable like what is happening in Palestine. But yet again those events are clear proof of propaganda. Many stand against Israel, despite the fault mainly lying upon Palestine. The Israelis are seen as warmongers for bombing schools and mosques and yet the media fails to mention how the Palestinians had hid there weapons in these very structures. My lecturer was right, never believe anybody.

Edit: Wow I don't know how I stuffed that quote up so badly.

I have a strong opinion that most of the worlds worst issues are directly related to hypocrisy.

Now that being said, there is empirical evidence that the brain cannot function in these situations .

So that it doesn't look like I'm advertising I'll PM You the url ;p.

For the rest of you look up Experimental Neurosis and do some critical thinking about the world around you

 

[Dramatic Flare]

According to me, I say "depends." I whole-heartedly agree with Miyamoto Musashi, author of the Book of Five Rings, that your tactics don't matter if you die, and you should do everything in your power to prevent yourself from dying.
However, you have to accept the fact that death is a possibility.
But Miyamoto didn't have access to nukes or machine guns.
So my answer is "give me a situation and a goal, and I'll tell you how I feel."

 

[LewsTherin]

I say they do not.
Argument 1: Stealing for food: Get a job and work your way up. If that isn't an option, go somewhere else. If that isn't an option, your life would pretty much be so hellish that death wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Argument 2: killing to save loved ones: Would they be comfortable with you knowing that you are mentally capable of taking the life of another human being, causing irrefutable loss for the members of their family and loved ones? Everyone is someones son/daughter/sister/brother/wife/husband/father/mother....

Argument 3: History will only see The War is Over! instead of Innumerable Civilians Killed In Blast: History might not see it, but you will know, and you will have to live with that for the rest of your life. I'd like to talk to the guys who fired of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and see how they feel about what they did.

Well I have nothing on the last one (since I've said it before).

Your first argument is far too simple on the subject. But the fact that you said what you said means that NOTHING I'll say will change your view so I won't say a thing. I just feel that's an extremely naive look on it.

As for the second one, if you are at the point where you are killing other people's loved ones, your family has likely already lost you so when you die the compounded effect is not much greater (not an infinitive mind you, there are special cases). However if you are willing to kill to protect your family you have already established that you have not given up on them.

Unless you are willing to argue that you'd stand by and watch someone murder your family because you don't want to hurt their family's feelings. Which might be true, I don't know you so I won't make assumptions.

Keeping in mind I am not referring to war, there are so many things wrong before, during, and after war that its a totally different subject. I'm talking about domestic events.

Response 1: In Canada, at least the part where I live, it isn't that hard currently to find a job that will pay for food/clothes and hold on to it for long enough to get yourself back in the game. That being said, circumstances haven't caused me to be in that situation as of yet. If you are dealing with addiction to drugs/alcohol or whatever else, there are organizations that are set up especially to help people in that situation. If you are caught up in gangs/prostitution, there are organizations set up to help you get out. It's just a matter of how much you are willing to do to get out. I apologize is that last statement makes it seem as if I belittle the difficulty of the situation. That sort of lifestyle is extremely difficult to sort out, but it can be done.

Now, if you are living in a place where these kinds of social services are not in place, say, sub-saharan Africa, life would already be so incredibly abhorrent that dying would not be much of a step downwards. Really the only thing would be to wait for some NGO to step in (It does happen) and help out. But, options in such a place are very, very slim. Being an AIDS orphan is a grim existence, but there is nothing stopping you from up and leaving, excepting of course from debilitating disease, younger siblings likely to meet your same fate, etc. etc. I realize that was a cold statement, and how easy it is to do the proper Western thing and wipe your hands clean of anyone not middle-upper class in the 1st world whilst I sit in my comfortable chair in my heated house with a ready supply of fresh water and food, while not 10 kilometres from this point there are people starving and dying, but I rant.

Response 2: As self-righteous as this might sound, I could not see myself corroding my morals to the point of taking the life of another flesh-and-blood human being, no matter the circumstances and would go so far as to say I would rather die than have any one of my loved ones if I were in their position corrode theirs. I also believe my family/loved once believe something similar. But, hey; I 'm not your average bear. At least, I try not to be.

And as you agree with my third point, this concludes my rebuttal.

 

[theultimateend]

I say they do not.
Argument 1: Stealing for food: Get a job and work your way up. If that isn't an option, go somewhere else. If that isn't an option, your life would pretty much be so hellish that death wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Argument 2: killing to save loved ones: Would they be comfortable with you knowing that you are mentally capable of taking the life of another human being, causing irrefutable loss for the members of their family and loved ones? Everyone is someones son/daughter/sister/brother/wife/husband/father/mother....

Argument 3: History will only see The War is Over! instead of Innumerable Civilians Killed In Blast: History might not see it, but you will know, and you will have to live with that for the rest of your life. I'd like to talk to the guys who fired of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and see how they feel about what they did.

Well I have nothing on the last one (since I've said it before).

Your first argument is far too simple on the subject. But the fact that you said what you said means that NOTHING I'll say will change your view so I won't say a thing. I just feel that's an extremely naive look on it.

As for the second one, if you are at the point where you are killing other people's loved ones, your family has likely already lost you so when you die the compounded effect is not much greater (not an infinitive mind you, there are special cases). However if you are willing to kill to protect your family you have already established that you have not given up on them.

Unless you are willing to argue that you'd stand by and watch someone murder your family because you don't want to hurt their family's feelings. Which might be true, I don't know you so I won't make assumptions.

Keeping in mind I am not referring to war, there are so many things wrong before, during, and after war that its a totally different subject. I'm talking about domestic events.

Response 1: In Canada, at least the part where I live, it isn't that hard currently to find a job that will pay for food/clothes and hold on to it for long enough to get yourself back in the game. That being said, circumstances haven't caused me to be in that situation as of yet. If you are dealing with addiction to drugs/alcohol or whatever else, there are organizations that are set up especially to help people in that situation. If you are caught up in gangs/prostitution, there are organizations set up to help you get out. It's just a matter of how much you are willing to do to get out. I apologize is that last statement makes it seem as if I belittle the difficulty of the situation. That sort of lifestyle is extremely difficult to sort out, but it can be done.

Now, if you are living in a place where these kinds of social services are not in place, say, sub-saharan Africa, life would already be so incredibly abhorrent that dying would not be much of a step downwards. Really the only thing would be to wait for some NGO to step in (It does happen) and help out. But, options in such a place are very, very slim. Being an AIDS orphan is a grim existence, but there is nothing stopping you from up and leaving, excepting of course from debilitating disease, younger siblings likely to meet your same fate, etc. etc. I realize that was a cold statement, and how easy it is to do the proper Western thing and wipe your hands clean of anyone not middle-upper class in the 1st world whilst I sit in my comfortable chair in my heated house with a ready supply of fresh water and food, while not 10 kilometres from this point there are people starving and dying, but I rant.

Response 2: As self-righteous as this might sound, I could not see myself corroding my morals to the point of taking the life of another flesh-and-blood human being, no matter the circumstances and would go so far as to say I would rather die than have any one of my loved ones if I were in their position corrode theirs. I also believe my family/loved once believe something similar. But, hey; I 'm not your average bear. At least, I try not to be.

And as you agree with my third point, this concludes my rebuttal.

Well I have to say. While we don't agree on the same things. You actually make your point without coming off as a cock gobbling jackass (This is not sarcasm, I appreciate your response).

If only everyone had the same online etiquette, drives me nuts when you talk to people and they go irrational ranter on you . But yeah, I'd go rambo on anyone who fucked with my family . I'm not a bear either...if I was I'd be SO much cuter. Chicks would be all over me =3