Something you don't read about in school... [Archive]

sage

10-05-1999, 02:26 AM

It's interesting that you bring up a subject dear to my heart: that of morality of (and in) war.

This subject is generally divided into two pieces (although there is always overlap in real world situations). The first is 'jus ad bello,' or 'justice of war.' The second is 'jus in bello,' or 'justice in war.' (pardon my latin).

This is a very important distinction for thinking and talking about the morality of a war, especially world war II.

Jus ad bellum covers the reasons why a country goes to war. For instance: Iraq invades Kuwait. This is an immoral act of war. The US + coalition goes to war with Iraq. This is a moral act of war. Until quite recently an act of aggression was pretty much the only valid 'moral reason' a country could go to war on another. So, invading, say, all of Western Europe is a clearly immoral act.

(quick aside: the recent interventions in E. Timor and Kosovo are clear violations of international law -- read the U.N. charter -- but are, I think, essentially moral acts whatever the messy details are)

Now, to add to this complexity is jus in bello. This covers the actions of combatants. It's also actually a very simple rule at it's heart, but it's the gray areas that become more complex and fuzzy (which I suppose is true with jus ad bellum as well). The rule is basically pretty simple: you may only kill combatants. What's a combatant? Someone in uniform.

Ahhh... if only it were that simple. Because a non-combatant can also be:
-- an incapacitated wounded (i.e. incapable of any action, including surrendering)
-- someone who surrenders, e.g. 17th SS Flak Battalion
-- a civilian - unless they are directly engaged in aiding the war effort such as making or transporting ammunition.

War crimes can & do cover both jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and the Nazi's violated pretty much all of them, whereas US violations of WW2 were pretty much limited to jus in bello. It's also important to realize that international law and standards of morality are two different things; additionaly there are subtle differences in definitions of jus in bello in different cultures that are accounted for by different traditions.

Anyway, I cannot possibly do this subject justice here, but if you are looking for a good, generalized (though strongly pro-zionist) book on the subject, I'd suggest Michael Waltzers 'Just and Unjust Wars.' Look for a 2nd addition copy as it includes changes to the text and an interesting discussion of the Gulf War.

Sage

SimonFox

10-05-1999, 02:44 AM

Steve,
Your post is interesting, but hardly suprising. Not sure about the juxtaposition of dates exactly but on the 29th of April 1945 the 42nd infantry division liberated Dachau.

Good points, Mike. Though I would hesitate to lump the Germans and the Japanese in together in the atrocities stakes as it was pretty much standard procedure for the latter. From my reading executing Japanese wounded on the battlefield was pretty much self-preservation for most allied soldiers (as was bayonetting any healthy corpses") given their propensity for hiding grenades.

Thomas Davie

10-05-1999, 03:11 AM

Steve; your post is interesting, indicative of human nature and pretty damn common (unfortunately).

It's lucky that I have little or no faith in the 'supposed' good side of human nature or it would have depressed me http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

That having been said, if I point a gun at you, all rules are off. I wouldn't be surprised if you fired a gun back at me, shot me in the head or committed any number of atrocities in the name of 'self defense'. Actually, I'm surprised that people are not more cruel than they are considering their biological nature.

Tom

kingtiger

10-05-1999, 04:05 AM

On the subject of morality: Was deciding to push back the bulge vs. cutting it off moral or immoral. Consider that 70% of casualities were made up of rifle platoons. (I will provide reference upon request - Either whole war or just Bulge, can't remember). Young boys drafted, moved up to the front and gunned down like farm animal as they attacked heavily fortified enemy positions. Gunned down before the commanding officer even new their name. That decision and battle action is in mind as immoral as mass murdering the enemy.

Just food for thought.

Richard Kalajian

Big Time Software

10-05-1999, 04:14 AM

What surprised me about this tidbit was the SCALE. 200 men is a whole lot of killing at one time. Dachau probably played a role, but Allied soldiers were killing SS men because of their uniforms since the early days of Normandy. Up until this acount I hadn't read of any slaughter of surrendered German soldiers more than about 40 at one time. Although the suspected murder of surrendering Germans after Malmedy probably scraped 1000 or more (but done in 2s and 3s over the entire front, not at one time).

My point for posting is that WWII is taught to US citizens as if each GI wore a halo of Gold over his head. Firebombing Dresden, slaughtering PoWs, lynching FRIENDLY "colored troops", black market rackets, gutting allied towns with artillery because "Jerry might be in there", etc. are all left out of the history books. And the Pacific is worse, since there was a huge issue of racisim towards "the yellow man".

War is Hell, and although the US didn't start WWII, and certainly its atrocities (even with bombing tossed in) pale in comparison to what the Axis powers did, Americans should still own up to their human failings. To be better behaved in the future you must first understand what you have done in the past.

One of my favorite bits of trials at the end of the war (not just the ones in Nurmburg) was the inclusion of the Soviets. HAH! Like those guys should sit in judgement of anybody. The Soviet regime slaughtered more people and invaded more countries than Germany did before the WWII officially broke out. Hell, they were one of the nations responsible for the defeat of Poland, the reason for the war's start. Also a great shining moment was when they tried to hang Skorzeny and a MI5 officer testified that the Allies did the same things...

Oh boy, I think I got myself started here http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif Time to sign off and do up another tank...

The US is overall a saint compared to its enemies in WWII, but it isn't lilly white. History lessons should make that clear, but they don't. And although the trials were in some ways necessary, they were done on VERY shakey legal grounds. And with the inclusion of the Soviets sitting in judgement, a bit of an insult to the word "justice".

Steve

Bil Hardenberger

10-05-1999, 04:21 AM

I think I'll start calling you Reverend Steve http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

hallelujah Brother!

You know what they say, the victor writes the history books.

Kevin Peltz

10-05-1999, 05:02 AM

Thomas has it right- there is only a thin veneer covering what we all really are underneath, and it gets thinner by the day. The bulk of us who have never been in a war, try to establish a set of parameters that will explain (condone?) this extreme behaviour in a form that can be quantified against the rest of our normal, moral, existence. It is so far outside of a non-combatants frame of reference that it is probably a mistake to even try to moralize.
The worst comes out, and nationality, borders, etc. cease to have meaning. It is brutal, and brutal acts were, and will continue, to be committed by all parties. It is part of the animal that we try hard to pretend is not inside us.

Kevin Peltz

10-05-1999, 05:27 AM

PS- Thomas, please do not shoot at Steve until CM has gone to the presses (or whatever they do to make CD's).

sage

10-05-1999, 06:41 AM

"War is hell." Said by, I believe, by General Sherman after his 'march to the sea' through Georgia. I.E. Total war. It was said as a moral defense for his actions -- namely that, because 'War is hell' making it more hellish is not wrong.

He is incorrect of course, because while war might be aweful, terrible, destructive, those features are not an excuse to make it even more so.

The overall goal of a "good" combatant, such as the US in WW2, should be to win the war, period. The consequences of losing are far too horrible to not win. But even in the face of an extraordinarily evil, totalitarian regime shooting prisoners and wounded does not become a morally sound option. War is hell, but to take that literally is to give up the last shreds of humanity.

Sage

guachi

10-05-1999, 12:12 PM

It seems ironic that those of us who love wargaming and pushing around cardboard counters or computer graphics creating virtual casualties are those who are most keenly aware of how horrible war really is. ( Aside from the actual combatants, of course).

Ever since I was little, I loved learning about WWII. Mostly because the planes and the tanks were neat. And, face it, we still think it is cool when Steve posts some new screen shot.

But my illusions were soon shattered when I got The American Heritage Picture History of World War II when I was 5. It's a huge coffee table size book of 640 pages. There are lots of pictures of death and carnage. I just looked at it and noticed that the first 5 pages are color pictures focused on death and not famous generals or marching soldiers. I read that book straight for two years and finished before my seventh birthday. I remember looking for a long time at the pictures from the concentration camps. I don't even need to open the book to picture them in my mind. I just couldn't understand how something like that could be real.

Jason

This thread is depressing. I think I am going to pop in a tape of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and laugh for the next 2 hours.

Herr Oberst

10-05-1999, 01:33 PM

Well said Steve. This is my third attempt at a post, but I can't seem to organize a coherent post that doesn't ramble on and on. So I'll try a concise version.

Put me in the place of those GI's who just had a bunch of SS surrender to them, and what would I do? I cannot say with absolute certainty. I hope that they would have been marched to the rear rather than executed, but then I have never had any group of people actively trying their best to kill me.

All that is known about that period of history must be placed out in the open. For all to read, for all to see, for all to learn. Then we hope that such events will not happen again. And we remain watchful in case they do.

The single quote about the war that sticks in my mind, and shall forever, was by a Dutch officer known as "Captain Harry" in Operation MarketGarden (since the poor Brits and Americans couldn't pronounce his name), and many other battles in WWII. He also happened to be the Pastor of my church in 1978.

"It must not be allowed to happen again."

Hopefully, through education and understanding we can avoid such tragedies.

tss

10-05-1999, 02:11 PM

It is often said that winner writes the history. Obviously this is not completely true, you only have to look at the number of memoirs written by German generals to prove it. But winners have one advantage: they get to define war criminals.

When a British destroyer fired at survivors of a sunken ship in Norway it was a "tactical neccessity" and when an U-boat did the same in West Africa it was a "heinous war crime", and the captain and three other officers were hanged.

In any case, executing prisoners is one of the the most stupid things to do. If the enemy knows that he will be probably shot after surrendering he will fight much harder.

As an example I might give Finnish civil war in 1918. The war was a nasty affair with both sides committing a lot of atrocities. It would take too much space to explain the reasons for the atrocities, so I'll just give a one-sentence description of the situation: nationalist "Whites" (or "government troops") fought against socialist "Reds" (or "rebels").

Research has shown that about 50% of Red casualties were actually prisoners that were shot within minutes or in some cases hours after their capture. The result was that after first few occasions Reds didn't want to surrender if they had any other option.

While the war was fought on rural area Whites got many very easy victories, because Reds would flee if the threat grew too big. But when the largest battle of the war was fought at Tampere the number of White casualties skyrocketed. The Reds had nowhere to run and they fought fanatically. As more than one Red put it: "They'll shoot us anyway, so at least we can fight".

The Red side was not clean, either. One of Red high commanders, Eino Rahja, allegedly said once: "Why the hell are you dragging those prisoners here? I'm going to kill them in any case so you could save some time and shoot them yourself." It is impossible to prove whether Rahja actually said that or not, but it would definetely have fitted in his character. (Rahja was an old-guard bolshevik who had been the bodyguard of Lenin for quite many years).

- Tommi

Pixman

10-05-1999, 02:23 PM

If humankind, as a whole, had the discipline and moral fiber to control its behavior once within a conflict, I dare say it would very likely have the discipline and moral fiber to never enter the conflict to begin with. Drawing moral lines after the shooting starts seems to me a bit late in the game. The cow's already out of the barn so to speak. I would much more like us to put our efforts toward stopping the fighting altogether than control the form it takes while it is going on.

I am reminded of the Star Trek episode where two nations are at war but, to prevent the other side from nuking them, each nation has to meet a quota of humanely killing her own people in a high tech disintegrator. Each side monitors up to the minute the numbers the other side is killing and they have to respond in kind or risk nuclear retaliation. To stage a preemptive strike a side can suddenly send a surge of her own people to the chamber, forcing the other side to respond in kind.

Kirk and the gang cannot believe what they are witnessing. The two nations have resigned themselves to the inevitability of war. They do not want the pain and suffering of real conflict, so they kill themselves painlessly at a wartime attrition rate. If ever anybody needed evidence of Roddenberry's genius, this is it.

There are many lessons in this hour long episode, that have come up in this thread. The "Jus ad bellum" vs. "Jus in bellum" distinction is perversely and parodoxically exposed as farce because the "Jus" is a farce. Take "jus ad bellum" for instance. Sage points out that one side can justify its going to war because it is responding to the aggressive act of the other nation. Well, in this episode, the "aggressive act" is your enemy killing his own people, and the justified retaliation is to kill your own people in kind. Interesting. "Jus in bellum" is also challenged here because, no matter how much we sanitize and anesthetize the killing, it does not negate the fact that innocent people are dying. In fact, there are virtually no military personnel -- all the voluntary lambs walking into the disintegration chambers are civilians dutifully marching to their deaths when their numbers are called -- as if it is fulfilling some higher purpose.

The "Jus in bellum"/"Jus ad bellum" distinction is a farcical artifact -- a convenience created my humans to justify their immoral acts. What matters is not who is dying and how they are dying but THAT people are dying. Sherman was right -- war is hell -- and Roddenberry knew it and showed it through Kirk's response. Kirk, in his overdramatic way, rebukes the leaders for making war too neat, clean and painless. War has to be horrible and painful and disgusting and irrational and immoral and unjustified and futile so that we may learn from it.

The concetration camps teach us. Hiroshima and Nagasaki teach us. Dresden and Tokyo teach us. Bataan teaches. Also, Steve's point that the fate of the 17th SS could teach us, if it were only in our history lessons, is well taken.

Littleton, Colorado can teach us too. Just look at our society, with all of the factionalism, hate, jealousy and chip on the shoulder attitudes. What do you think you are going to get when you start drafting and enlisting a socially bottom heavy cross section, arming them and then forcing them into a foreign country with people they don't know. Sprinkle on some fear, fatigue, hunger, loneliness, boredom and lack of exposure to the opposite sex and you have concocted a pretty potent human witch's brew.

It is unrealistic to put humans in the worst situations of their lives and expect their best moral behavior. The pendulum can only swing in one direction at a time. Once we let it swing to hatred, war and chaos, at the macro level, any fool knows what is going to surface at the micro level. This is the natural law of correspondence at work. As it happens above, so must it happen below and vice versa.

One last point about the Star Trek episode and the real lesson to be learned. Kirk teaches the leaders that, just as they may preemptively send their people to their deaths, they may preemptively choose NOT to send them to their deaths as well. This, in turn, frees their enemy up to not send her people to their deaths.

Likewise, we may choose not to wage war, even though we have sanitized it, made it rule based and honorable (what a joke). Once we stop waging war, it does not matter what form the weapons and methods take, for they become obsolete. Einstein tried so hard to get this point across to the day he died. He basically did not believe in arms control. He said that we could destroy all the nuclear weapons in the world and it would matter naught if we did not destroy man's determination to kill his fellow man. Truer words were never spoken.

One final illustration:

I am reading Robert V. Remini's, "The Life of Andrew Jackson". In 1806, while he was major general of the Tennessee militia, Jackson became at odds with a man named Charles Dickinson who was the son-in-law of Captain Joseph Ervin. Ervin and Jackson had bet on a horse race and Jackson won. Ervin tried to pay in a manner other than what was agreed upon, but eventually made good on the bet to Jackson's full satisfaction. Unfortunately, a friend of Jackson disparaged Ervin and Dickinson -- a bit of a dandy -- stepped into the argument on his father-in-law's behalf (honor). Then Jackson got back involved although he really had no quarrel with Ervin (more honor). It escalated and, eventually, Dickinson wrote Jackson a disparaging letter calling him a "coward and an equivicator". He followed this up by publishing an article in the Nashville Review, calling Jackson a "worthless scoundrel..., a poltroon and a coward." Those of you who know anything about Jackson, know that he wasn't going to stand for much of that. He challenged Dickinson to a duel.

The two met with their seconds at hand. Dickinson was reputed to be the best shot in the state of Tennessee. On the signal, Dickinson quickly raised his pistol and fired first, violating the rules of engagement which call for simultaneous firing (lack of honor). The ball hit Jackson square in the chest, shattering two ribs and lodging 2 inches from his heart. He gasped audibly and clutched his chest but held firm. Jackson then slowly raised his pistol and took aim. When he pulled the trigger, it stopped at half cock. He then pulled the hammer back again, fired, and hit Dickinson in the gut -- the worst -- blowing a hole right through him. Dickinson painfully bled to death. Jackson survived almost 40 more years with that bullet in his chest causing pain and discomfort.

It may surprise many of you to learn that, after the incident, the majority of people accused Jackson of killing Dickinson in cold blooded murder. And they were right. According to custom and social mores of the time, Jackson had "Jus in bellum" and "Jus ad bellum" working in his favor. Dickinson had started the conflict and had violated the rules within the conflict. Yet, when it came down to it, none of this absolved Jackson of his basic moral choice -- to kill Dickinson or not. He chose to kill him and was rightly condemned for it.

The real culprits in all of this are the very customs and mores that got Jackson and Dickinson on the dueling field to begin with. Without these man made codes of honor, the two never would have fought. Notice that after the fact, it is these codes that the people rejected, not the person who violated them. They even went so far as to condemn the man who followed the codes to the letter.

And so it is that our society learns. The awful, bloody deaths of Dickinson, Hamilton (by the way, it is ironic that shortly after the Dickinson duel, Aaron Burr comes into Jackson's life and plays a major role) and other dueling victims, exposed dueling for what it was -- a pointless waster of human life for a naive and obsolete notion of justice. So, too, are we learning that war is the exact same model on a macro scale -- the law of correspondence at work again.

Let us teach and portray war to our children as the living hell that we are -- all of us. Give them the bloody realism of Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. Show the pictures of Dresden, the holocaust, and any other horrors that reveal our darkest side in action. They are monuments of what we have achieved just as much as Mt. Rushmore, the space shuttle, and the United Nations. And then let's pray that our children move beyond war, to a better way.

Pixman

------------------
Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

John Maragoudakis

10-05-1999, 03:07 PM

Sage, what does jello have to do with it?

Rex

10-05-1999, 03:15 PM

Pixman,

Can I get an 'Amen'!

A very interesting post, I very much enjoyed reading it. That episode of 'Star Trek' happens to be one of my favorites. I was probably ten years old when I first saw it, and it contributed significantly to my views of war.

The main point of the episode being that war is Hell, and it should be that way. War should never be easy or frivolus.

It's quite easy to sit in our comfortable houses now and say how wrong it was to execute those men from the 17th PzGren, or committ any of the numerous other atrocities of war. However, I believe that war should only be fought for one reason, to win. Coming in 2nd place, or 'fighting the good fight' really don't work when it comes to events like WWII.

If a country committs itself to war, an event which will doubtlessly kill many of its citizens, it better be fighting to win. Possibly (maybe probably), the combatants will committ many acts which seem cruel by peacetime standards. Too bad. If that cost seems too high, don't start a war.

I think this was what Roddenbery was trying to get across: that war needs to be horrible, that way, people will do their best to avoid it.

[This message has been edited by Rex (edited 10-05-99).]

Sten

10-05-1999, 03:52 PM

Bravo, Pixman!
Adequate, well put and to the point. I would have said it myself, had I the eloquence, but alas, I don't. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif

"He said that we could destroy all the nuclear weapons in the world and it would matter naught if we did not destroy man's determination to kill his fellow man. Truer words were never spoken."

The same quote has been used by people arguing against gun-control laws. NRA representatives are especially fond of it. This is really ironic since Einstein was one of the strongest voices on the "gun-control" -side of the argument. In his own words (modified by my memory):
" The everyday mans lethality can hardly ever be reduced to zero, but not taking steps in that direction is sheer stupidity. "

I don't want to start the "gun-control or not" debate. But I'm pretty sure Einstein would have wanted to... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Sten

sage

10-05-1999, 04:10 PM

Pixman --

I can't entirely disagree with you, in that these concepts of 'jus' were created from a need to justify the horrid nature of war.

Where I do disagree with you is here: if you believe that war is an absolute evil, then you cannot believe in concepts of justice/morality in war. But I don't believe that. Because: if you believe that some wars need to be fought (say, to stop Nazi agression in europe), then you have to believe in 'jus ad bellum.' If you believe that some wars can be more horrible than others (i.e. intentional killing of civilians vs. "collateral damage", i.e. accidental killing of civilians) then you have to believe in jus in bello.

I believe there will never me a time without war, not because it's man's human nature, but because it's the nature of organized society to engage in armed conflict. Doing anything we can to reduce non-combatant casualties and control the frequency with which states choose war as an option is good.

Sage

Pixman

10-05-1999, 07:55 PM

Sage, killing another human is an absolute evil. Therefore, war is an absolute evil.

This all brings us back to the cause vs. effect argument and where we conveniently draw the line in time to start the causal chain reaction. In this day and age it is most convenient for us to draw the line circa 1933 when Hitler started to wield power. By doing so, we can easily justify all of our horrible actions that followed as necessary reactions to that Nazi monster. But this too is farce.

Hitler and the Nazi movement did not mutate from mold spores and spontaneously come into existence. They, or some other punishing and hate purging force, HAD to come into existence. Why? Because we stopped shooting in 1918, we just forgot the main point which is to stop hating and blaming each other. As bad as it was, WWI was just not terrible enough to teach the lesson.

The paradox is, get this, we have to love Hitler as much as we hate him -- especially since this is really the same emotion. In many ways he was just as much a martyr for an ultimately good end as say Gandhi. God sometimes picks strange and cruel messengers to get the point across. The best thing we can do to learn is take responsibility for creating the Nazi regime as well as for eliminating it. Then work to eliminate the underlying hatred.

Sage wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Where I do disagree with you is here: if you believe that war is an absolute evil, then you cannot believe in concepts of justice/morality in war. But I don't believe that. Because: if you believe that some wars need to be fought (say, to stop Nazi agression in europe), then you have to believe in 'jus ad bellum.' If you believe that some wars can be more horrible than others (i.e. intentional killing of civilians vs. "collateral damage", i.e. accidental killing of civilians) then you have to believe in jus in bello.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, there still is no "jus" sage (although I like a little sage in my "au jus", lol couldn't resist http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif). What you call "jus ad bellum" or "jus in bello" are really just convenient excuses for the immorality of those you think are the good guys. Your two "if/then" arguments do not hold up to scrutiny.

First, "jus in bello". You cite a distinction between civilian deaths caused by "collateral damage" and those caused by intentional massacre as evidence of "jus in bello". I doubt that the surviving family members of the dead in either case would take much solace in the distinction. Dead is dead. Land mine, incendiary, shot down plane lands on you while falling from the sky or bullet to the back of the head -- it's all the same. The person died because somebody decided to make war. Only your mind's search for justification for your part in it creates the "jus in bello" lie. Try this: The Germans make ballbearings for tanks in a plant in Hamburg. We are justified in bombing the plant because it will limit their tank building capacity. Those Germans that work in the plant know the risks so we are not responsible for their deaths. People who live next door to the plant also know the risks so we are not responsible for their deaths either. Do you really believe this?

Now to "Jus ad bellum". I believe we made the correct decision to fight Nazi Germany, but NOT because I think that their aggression justified our actions. Rather, because Europe, from England to Russia and everywhere in between, for close to two milennia, has harbored strong antisemitism. Because England and France and Poland and Germany and Austria and Hungary and Turkey and Russia and Spain and Greece and Yugoslavia have all been at each other's throats for even longer. Because our English roots and sentimentality toward France naturally bias us in their direction. And because WWI left all of this smoldering while the Versailles treaty provided fuel for the future fire that was WWII.

Do you believe that our American Revolution came out of English repression of our rights? No repression, no revolution right? The repression is the fuel and the revolution is the fire. Of course, we can go back in time for causes of the English policies and on and on, but I'll leave the illustration where it stands because we have been raised to be comfortable with it there.

So what of the Nazi fire? What was the fuel feeding that? Surely it did not all come out of the little corporal. No, he was just the match. The fuel was all of the various national and cultural hatreds that I mentioned earlier, among other things.

If we can make ourselves believe that the American Revolution came out of the Stamp Act and similar wrongs, why do we have difficulty believing that the Nazi movement came out of the Treaty of Versailles and deep seated animosity on the European continent? The answer is very simple, because we want England to be the cause of our revolution and we want Hitler to be the cause of WWII. That way we are cast in a positive light and helps us sleep at night. Unfortunately, it also prevents us from learning as much from the experience as we could.

We had to kill Hitler because we created him. Frankenstein was such a wonderful story for this very reason. The sad irony of the story is that Dr. Frankenstein, who created his monster out of good intentions, ultimately had to kill it when he saw that it was incongruous with everything around it. So, too, with Nazi Germany. We helped create it out of supposedly good intentions at the end of WWI and, when it turned out to be a terrible monster because it could not survive in the world around it, we had to kill it.

Just as you don't read Frankenstein and blame the monster, please don't look at WWII and blame Hitler. And don't conveniently start with his rise to power to justify our acts of war. Take responsibility for him and the war and vow never to create them again. Take responsibility for all of the people who conveniently looked the other way in occupied countries when the jews just started to get rounded up and put on trains. Take responsibility for what is coming to light in Switzerland even today. Hitler was just the tiny tip of a huge antisemitic iceberg.

Our only hope is to hate hate itself and love love itself. Don't hate and blame Hitler, hate the hate that he stood for and the allied hate that helped create him in 1918. We are all culpable.

Gotta run,

Pixman

P.S. Guys, my wife is having surgery tomorrow. Her name is Stacey. Please say a little prayer if you get a chance.

------------------
Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

Big Time Software

10-05-1999, 08:42 PM

Good points Pixman. The one problem with this is that some human beings will not pay any attention to morality when presenting others with options.

A perfect example of this was the breakup of Yugoslavia. The causes for the situation of 1991 go back hundreds of years, but the events that caused the bloody war (and I do not think of it as a civil war) started when the Federal government ceased to exist and Serbia took over control under false pretenses. This action went on to see the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians and the utter destruction of a fairly well off Communist country. There was a point in time where I belive that quick, stong military action could have kept the war more localized. But Nato and the UN chickened out and just hoped things would be OK (just like the UK in the 1930s). The Serbs are not stupid people, and just like in Kosovo, would have backed down if they were hit hard enough to see that slaughtering the innocent wasn't so fun when someone else hit back on their behalf.

So... if we play by strict rules of morality, when someone else isn't, innocent people die. But in the right set of circumstances, war can shorten suffering and minimize death and destruction. The trick is recognizing where, and most importantly WHEN, this should be done. And when done right, a war to stop greater bloodshed and a wider war is morally the better choice to make.

I am reminded of a classic moral dilema posed to philosophy students. You are the commander of a submarine that is damaged while at the bottom of the sea. Water is rusing into a section of the sub and unless contained, the whole ship will be lost. There is only one place where this can be done, but there are people still alive on the opposite (i.e. the flooding) side. Seconds count, and if you try to save those men the chance to save the sub will be lost and EVERYBODY will die. So, do you order the doors closed, knowing that you are in effect murdering fellow crew members, or do you leave it open and let everybody drown. Not a nice choice to make, but in these situations any action, even doing nothing, is a moral choice. Morality isn't black and white. The obvious choice is sometimes the hardest to make.

Now, as far as culpability of the Allies for Hitler's actions, this is true (and I have aruged this many times). But the reasons for the treatment of Germany go back to the way Gemrany treated them, which goes back to the way they treated Germany, on and on into the depths of history. So it is a chicken and egg thing. Who is really responsible? Human nature. OK, so knowing this, what do you do when one or the other does something. Say, "OK, we are even now. Let's put this all behind us and move on to a higher level of understanding of each other"?. Never, ever going to happen as most aggressors belive that if given an inch they are entitled to a mile (this was certainly Hitler's problem. He always wanted the mile, never the inches). So we are right back to where we started from.

Steve

Hope Stacey is recovering nicely by the time you read this.

rwcanuck

10-05-1999, 08:51 PM

Whether it was this century or centuries past there have been vicious acts of cruelty...what the next century will bring is anyone's guess but I believe the way mankind behaves there will be more of the same http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

rwcanuck

10-05-1999, 08:58 PM

sorry..I mean't http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif after my last reply but no matter how much hatred there is, there is an equal amount of kindness that mankind possesses to hekp others in wartime and in other calamaties.

Fionn

10-05-1999, 10:34 PM

Steve,

As cold as the answer may be one must take the certainty of saving the sub by letting those crew drown over the possibility of saving them AND the sub.

In the cold light of logistics and personnel replacement "Sailors are expendable and eminently replaceable ( in the short and long terms) whilst nuke attack boats are neither."

Of course, the hope is that you're never put in these situations but if you ever are your role is to do whatever serves the "greater good". In this case saving a combat-capable naval unit at the cost of a few lives is a simple choice to make.

REALLY hard choices come when you have to decide between 2 people who will each lose both legs if they aren't operated on after a car crash and ONE person who will definitely die if not operated on. You only have 1 operating theatre and staff and due to the complexity of injuries of the ONE person if you operate on him you will be unable to save the legs (the time spent in operating on him will be longer than a leg can survive after the release of all the metabolytes released after severe crush injuries.)

So... Is it better to leave two people in wheelchairs and accept one mortality OR is it better to let the one person die and preserve the mobility of two others ? Now THAT's another thing you don't get posed in most schools http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif.

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

John Pender

10-05-1999, 10:57 PM

Pixman, our prayers are with you and your family. Wish Stacey our best.

Lee

10-05-1999, 11:43 PM

Interesting thread. I'd like to respond to a few things said.

tss: I know very little about the Finnish civil war, but I take
it from your description that the "Reds" were communist
revolutionaries trying to take over Finland from within. In which
case, I would like to point out that there is nothing wrong with a
basically good and just government executing traitors trying to
take over the country. I think they should be given a fair and
speedy trial before the sentence is carried out (wouldn't need
too long of a trial in most cases since they were clearly fighting
for the communist side), but there is nothing wrong with them being
ultimately executed for their crimes. In fact, if communists
(or others of their vile ilk) should ever try to take over a
country, they should all be killed by the government/citizens as
quickly as possible. Communists should never, ever, be
allowed to take over a country. They must be stopped at all costs.
Because if they do take over, God help the citizens of that country.
Their freedoms will be taken away, they will be made slaves and
abused, imprisoned and murdered at will. That's something that
bears remembering.

Pixman: Killing another human is *not* an absolute evil. That's
why we have the term "murder"; to distinguish between killing
someone for just cause or by accident and the intentional killing
of another human for no just reason.

Example, Someone unsavory fellow breaks into your home and tries
to kill you with an axe, so you shoot him. Perfectly legitimate,
right and good reason to kill someone. Not evil at all.

Another example, a neighboring country tries to take over your
free country and enslave your people (because they want your land
and think your race is worthless sub-human trash, anyhow). So,
you and your fellow countrymen fight these invaders and kill a
great number of them. Once again, a perfectly legitimate reason
to kill someone. These invaders are trying to steal your land
and enslave/murder your people. Decent peaceable people
have a right to defend themselves and their liberty from
those who would do them harm and steal their freedom.

sage

10-06-1999, 12:40 AM

Pixman --

Your philosophy is one that I understand, but is no one that I agree with, as I do not believe in absolutes where humanity is concerned. I think BTS said it well; a small war to stop a big war is a moral war. An artillery bombardment of a village that is preceded by a warning to the inhabitants to leave is preferable to one that is not. A war in which prisoners and wounded are not shot is preferable to one in which they are not.

But if you believe (and it appears that you do) that a complete rejection of the possibility of morality in war may in fact limit or end future conflicts, then -- so be it. I respect your faith. The complete rejection of morality in war is a rejection of all violence. You are in good company (Gandhi, MLK, et al.).

Sage

Pixman

10-06-1999, 01:07 AM

Thanks John P, BTS and other well wishers. You guys feel even more like family to me now.

I know I come off like a pie in the sky optimist. But I refuse to acquiesce to the darker side of man (meaning me). If there is no chance of a brighter tomorrow through learning from our mistakes, then I might as well tell Stacey's anesthesiologist to gas me up and end it all for me. There has to be a use for our notions of morality. They are and must be motivational.

The submarine example is great Steve -- Star Trek again. I'm thinking of the very moving scene at the end of the second movie when Spock is dying of radiation poisoning. He has sacrificed himself for the ship -- "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....or the one." Great stuff and certainly applicable to the submarine dilemma. Obviously, given the choices, you sacrifice the men in the flooded compartment and pray that they and God forgive you.

Steve, I do not disagree that there are times when going to war is the right choice. WWII and Kosovo, as you point out, are both prime examples. The point I want to make is the difference between proactive and reactive choices. Our entry into WWII was reactive. That is, it was almost a mechanical, reflexive response to what preceded it, i.e. Germany's and Japan's aggression. Sure, we had choice and could have stayed out but, considering Pearl Harbor and the picture that had been painted in Europe to that point, we needed to get in and get it done.

Conversely, the Marshall Plan was a proactive masterstroke -- a true investment in lasting peace and, I think, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. I hold the UN in a similar regard but it is still struggling to take its full place in the world. It is in these types of efforts that I wish we would invest our energies. What matters is how we use the breathing room to think and plan that a war can buy us. That thinking and planning should focus on resolving the underlying issues that fuel the violence, with the end goal being to prevent another war from happening.

The Marshall Plan was exactly that. It provided no fuel for a future fire. In fact, it had more the effect of a fire hose. How could Germany remain hostile while we were rebuilding her cities, infrastructure and economy? Likewise with Japan. Is the Marshall Plan the end all? No, but it provides a major precedent for how to resolve a conflict AND invest in future peace.

I don't think we should be proud we defeated Hitler and his Nazi henchmen. The war was a necessary evil in which we took part with the goal of ending it. That is not meant to dishonor any of the brave men and women who gave their lives to the cause. We all (the Allies)had a job to do and did it. But the true moral act was to love and forgive our enemy when it was over, to help him up and restore his honorable place in the world. Of that we should be very proud.

I need to go snuggle Stace now. Thank you all for enduring my long winded optimism. I'll let you know how things turn out.

Peace,

Pixman

------------------
Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

Thomas Davie

10-06-1999, 01:52 AM

Steve; when I was taking my philosophy degreee, I never heard of that classical dilemma http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif My choice is simple....seal the doors, kill some crew and save the others/the boat. Personally, I do not see that a choice exists to be made. You hesitate? You lose everything. A Kantian might claim that issues of personal morality cease to exist in a war. If anyone is interested, you can check out Immanuel Kant's 'The Critique of Pure Reason' paying particular attention to a chapter containing 'categorical imperatives'.

I've never been in a war and hope never to be in one. However, that having being said, I would do *whatever* it takes to win....or whatever I had inductively concluded was necessary to win. I would rather not engage in atrocities....I would rather not have to kill in order to live....I would rather not have to defend my way of life/existence with the sword....but I would. And, I would make the claim that hunreds of millions of other people would as well. Pretty bleak commentary on human nature? No; it is simply what and who we are. We kill in order to live. Other species we eat. Other humans we kill because there is something existent within them that we despise or fear.

Now, if you're not yet thoroughly convinced that I am a barbarian, take a gander at 3 books by Plato; 'The Republic', 'The Statesman'and 'The Laws'. Essentially I am in complete agreement with what is contained in these books. It may not be nice and it certinaly is not kind or gentle, but humans have always distinguished 'outsiders' from 'insiders'. And we do not take kindly to outsiders http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif Very few ingroups do.

So....I guess I am saying that violence doesn't particularly surprise or disturb me. I expect it as a natural course of human endeavours. What does surprise and disturb me is that when reason fails some people will give up and let their way of life be overcome rather than fighting to inflict damage on an opposing mode of existence.

Consider this a roundabout way of me saying that I have never considerd the USA a 'pure as the driven snow' country'. But I sure as hell am glad that they are the pre-eminent military power in the world today. 200 SS troops murdered? Well, you know what is said.... 'the winners make the rules'.

Tom

Pixman

10-06-1999, 01:57 AM

Lee, your line of thinking is exactly what holds us back and all but guarantees that we will continue to wage war.

Sage:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>a small war to stop a big war is a moral war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, just the more preferable of two immoral acts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>An artillery bombardment of a village that is preceded by a warning to the inhabitants to leave is preferable to one that is not. A war in which prisoners and wounded are not shot is preferable to one in which they are not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree on both counts, but it does not make the bombardment moral, it just mitigates the killing. You are still responsible for any who stay in the village and die. You are also responsible for the wounding and capturing of the soldiers that you "mercifully" choose not to shoot.

I've got a kooky idea for all of you naysayers out there. Let's just imagine that, in 1939, we took all of the resources we would eventually spend on the war -- including potential lives -- and used them to produce goods of all kinds that the German people might want. Real stuff -- oil, cars, cloths, toys, Glenn Miller albums, you name it. And then we started shipping them to Germany by whatever means possible. Kind of a reverse Dunkirk meets St. Nicholas. Just drive right over the Maginot line and start giving the stuff out. What are they going to do, shoot us? And even if they did, what the hell, we're just going to line up on Normandy beach in a few years to get slaughtered anyway.

How many could they kill before the people doing the killing would start to realize the barbarity of their actions? The German soldier was no barbarian. He was a highly educated, honorable man for the most part. So why was he fighting? Because he was duped and we reinforced the duping by playing the role of a perfectly viable enemy. Imagine how idiotic Hitler would look up there waving his arms around and getting red faced in one of his speeches while we are airdropping Hershey's chocolate into Berlin. It's almost comical to picture.

Ridiculous sounding? Sure. Less costly in lives and material over the ensuing 6 years? I'd bet my life on it. We tried the traditional way and boy was it uuuugly. Why not try something new with the same conviction and determination with which we wage war? What are we afraid of?

Sage:

I am honored to be mentioned in the same solar system as Gandhi and MLKing Jr. But please, these men actually did give their lives for this cause (and advanced it by the way http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif). I am just writing on a bulletin board. You did not mention JC, but I guess that is just too high a standard of behavior for any of us to try to emulate. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

------------------
Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

Thomas Davie

10-06-1999, 02:03 AM

Pixman; my best wishes are for your wife.

As regards Spock and his utterance of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....or the one', I would have to respond by saying 'the needs of the many NEVER outweigh the rights of one'.

Consider a dilemma that I was faced with in one of my philosphy classes; 'you're in a desert and you own a water stand; ten people who are obviously dying of thirst come up to you and demand your water; what do you do, and what is right?'. Obviously, the perception of strength balances will play a large part in anyone's decision as to what they do, but I made the claim that it is your right 'as owner of the water stand' to kill all ten people if chosen in order to 'defend your private property'.

Oddly enough, despite the claim that I have a bleak view of humanity I would hold the opposite 'that I trust enough in another's rationality to hold my sovereignty from them as valid' such that I do not have to resort to violence to defend what I believe to be mine. But if I do, so be it.

Regards

Tom

------------------

SGTRock

10-06-1999, 02:07 AM

Again Guys, Great Post!
Alot of Us here seem to be trying to define morality and war. I think you have to look at Human nature, but human nature; or sin as some would call it make up this world on a whole.
I believe War brings on a different kind of morality all it's own. To the victor goes the spoils.
I don't think the question is morality as much as it is moral. I don't at all agree with Shermans approach in the Civil War, but it worked. By burning everything on the way to Atlanta it helped break the moral of the people who were in this case fueling the machine so to speak. War is made to either subdue or eliminate the others moral. Sherman was right "War is Hell" (I use it on my post all the time) ((But I'm a die hard Reb )) Look at the Bible:
Complete genicide (that is not just eliminating all surviors in the land, but ripping open wombs and killing the the unborn children )was done against opposing tirbes which the Isrealites eliminated--land was aquired through this, but the moral (in this case the opposition) was completely eliminated. This also served a purpose to the other neighboring empires which in turn did effect their opinion of the Isrealites approach, or request for more land. Now I don't say this to poo poo the Bible but the Bible also gives the reason why. It says that God told the Moses, Arron to do this because they were evil in his sight and the Isrealites were not allowed to let any other gods or mindsets deviate them from the God Jehovah. Ok. Now were back to the 'God told me too, thing' something that the Koran adheres too more than the Bible; in anycase this isn't a lesson on theology it's a lesson of morality, but most of all free will. Sometimes that free will is fueled by God, other times greed.
The fact is not that 200 SS Soldiers were massacred by GIs, but what would you do as a GI Soldier if you were there at that time. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Steve has a point too no one race is without spot or wrinkle, but 'When It Comes To War, Everyone Has Their Own Rules ', in the end God, or destiny makes the decision either to punish, or to bless.

I said it once, I leave this quote everytime...

------------------
Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

Chris Jenkins

10-06-1999, 02:27 AM

Hope the wife is doing well. I am reminded of Sun Tzu. "To avoid the evils of war, we must study them." Has everyone heard about the Austrian election? The radical right-wingers came in second place. The leader (fuehrer?) of this party is a real problem child.

------------------
Climb to Glory!

Larry Marks

10-06-1999, 03:23 AM

Pix, my best to you and your wife.

It is fascinating to look back at how Hitler rose to power in the period between the World Wars. He was able to gain an iron grip on a country bitterly defeated in 1918 and subject to severe economic hardships during the 20's and early 30's. He was the wrong man at the right time (for him). I have always wondered what course the war would have taken on September 3, 1939 if France and England did not act on their promise to come to Poland's aid. I believe that Hitler would have turned East first toward Russia. That would have been perfect. Let the two totalitarian regimes beat the hell out of each other. The US still would had to fight Japan though. The course of history would have been very different. The Germans may have a better shot of defeating the Russians if they invaded in May 1940 instead of June of 1941. However, if they were successful, Hitler would have then turned West. As his actions showed prior to the war, nothing was ever enough for him.

History has deemed the Allies to have fought a "noble war" against the Axis from 1939 to 1945 because of the defeat of the totalitarian political systems. However, on a more basic level the GI must have had two things in mind: stay alive and kill the enemy. It doesn't shock me that the Allies committed atrocities. I recently spoke to a Korean vet who was there in 1950 about the massacre and a Vietnam vet about the Korean massacre and My Lai. It is interesting that they both said the same exact thing: "War is hell". I think their point was combat is real hairy and **** happens. I am not condoning or approving the acts, but trying to understand why it happens. War on a grand scale might be fought for rational reasons, but to the combat soldier who has bullets flying all around him his reality has to be more irrational. What is right or wrong to us looking from a very safe distance might not be so clear to those in combat.

Larry

Thomas Davie

10-06-1999, 03:26 AM

Pixman; if we (the West) really started to turn all of our industrial resources into shipping products to Nazi Germany in 1939, I would have bolted from Canada, attempted to get German citizenship and take whatever the West was willing to give me as a German.

This is a thought experiment of course, but I would be willing to bet that when the West could not afford to give more, Hitler would be able to take whatever was left (and I would not blame him if we engaged in that course of action ).

Now, if the West had atomic weapons at the beginning of 1939 and had demonstrated or transmitted a willingness to use them should Germany continue in it's ways they would have stopped....

I assume that I possess a different view of human nature than you http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Regards

Tom

Lee

10-06-1999, 02:23 PM

Pixman: Unless it is your contention that human beings do not
have the right to protect themselves from being murdered or
enslaved, I don't see one thing that I said that you could possibly
disagree with. If you'd like to point out what I said that was
so wrong, I'd be interested to hear it.

BTW, I hope your wife is well. My prayers are with her. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Darstand

10-06-1999, 04:22 PM

A Few Thoughts

I am far more concerned about our willingness to violate the Constitution and every Law in the land when we shoved US citizens of Japanese orgin into interment camps; Then I am about US GI's executing prisoners of War.

War is the absence of morality. Trying to create rules for war is some strange European concept that never works. The real reason you want to treat prisoners well is that if you just shoot them or treat them terribly they are more willing to fight. Remember that Germans almost never surrendered to Russians.

It is strange to me that religion which is supposed to be about peace and brotherly love. Is actually more about killing, maiming, and persecuting those who don't share your religion. And given in the Bible, Koran, and Torah the willingness of God to take sides and condone these actions only leads me to believe that Man has created God in his own image and not the other way around.

[This message has been edited by Darstand (edited 10-06-99).]

tss

10-06-1999, 04:34 PM

Lee wrote:

I know very little about the Finnish civil war, but I take it from your description that the "Reds" were communist revolutionaries trying to take over Finland from within. In which case, I would like

The situation was not that simple. At the time Finland had just gained her independence from Russia. As result the government structures were more or less in chaos. Both sides claimed that they were the legitimate government, Whites because they controlled what was left of the Senate which was officially the highest authority at the time, and Reds because they controlled Helsinki (the capital) and in their opinion the Senate had been disbanded. The White claim was stronger, and in private Red leaders speaked of "Revolution", but in their public statements they always claimed to be legitimate.

Also, I intentionally refrained from using term "communist" when describing Reds, because the term has means different things to different people, and in any case the modern meanings can't be straightforwardly applied to situation in 1918. The Red leaders were definitely revolutionaries and some of them were even bolshevists but many were not. Most of the Red soldiers were common workers and farm hands who had joined socialist party because it was their only way of having any influence in society. Many joined Red Guards because they were unemployed (there was a _severe_ recession in Finland at the time) and in danger of starving (there was also a food shortage), and the Red Guard provided food and money.

What made the war especially hairy was that both sides fought "different" wars. The Reds were rallied to pacify the country and to "protect the rights of common people against oppressors". The Whites, however, were originally rallied to disarm the 40000 Russian soldiers that were still in Finland. In reality, only about 2000 Russians took part in the war, the rest only wanted to go home as quickly as possible.

So, the Reds thought that they were fighting a "class war" against the bourgeoisie, while the Whites thought that they were fighting a "liberation war" against Russians and a few Finnish "criminals" that had joined them. As both sides were (in their opinion) clearly fighting for a "just cause" they had to be the "good guys", so the enemy were "bad guys", and as we all know from Hollywood movies, bad guys are evil and you are allowed to do anything to stop them.

Of course, the commanders on both sides knew what really was happening, but the common soldiers knew only what they were told.

crimes. In fact, if communists (or others of their vile ilk) should ever try to take over a country, they should all be killed by the government/citizens as quickly as possible. Communists should never,

You know, most communists have some reason why they become communists. The communist ideal is very desirable: equality, everybody gets what they need, and everybody works for common good as well as they can. The problem is, that the ideal works only if each and every person unselfishly agrees to it, and that doesn't happen in this world. The history of last 80 years shows what happens in reality.

The communism breeds out of poverty and hunger. If you want to get rid of communism the effective way is not to kill all communists, but to remove poverty. It worked in Finland. I find it quite ironic that in 40 years following the White victory, _all_ of the reforms that Reds demanded prior to war were made, but if the Reds had won, Finland would probably have been annexed to Soviet Union in late 20's or early 30's.

- Tommi

Mike Oberly

10-06-1999, 05:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You know, most communists have some reason why they become communists. The communist
ideal is very desirable: equality, everybody gets what they need, and everybody works for
common good as well as they can. The problem is, that the ideal works only if each and every
person unselfishly agrees to it, and that doesn't happen in this world. The history of last 80 years
shows what happens in reality.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ernest Hemingway wrote an amusing bit in a letter to a friend once summing up his current political philosophy,along the lines of:

'Regardless of the political/economic system,top dog gets on top.Top dog then commences to kick bottom dog in the teeth'

It's always been and always will be about power,and power is always abused.

Mike

SGTRock

10-06-1999, 06:24 PM

"It is strange to me that religion which is supposed to be about peace and brotherly love. Is actually more about killing, maiming, and persecuting those who don't share your religion. And given in the Bible, Koran, and Torah the willingness of God to take sides and condone these actions only leads me to believe that Man has created God in his own image and not the other way around."

On the contrary Religion doesn't start wars, man does, Usually for Greed not God.
When it comes to the Torah (The Old Testament of the Bible ) The Isrealites fought for a different reason, a mandate that there faith was to purify the land. It's a complicated thing to justify, but you'd need to do a Bible study to make sense of it. Most Juihads (Holy Wars) are fought with alterier political reasons and have very little to do with Religion at all, most of it is greed. Although I will say that writings and various other types of medias more over propogandas have led to riling people up. The Koran looks at anyone who is not a muslim as an infidal (Better off dead) Islam, is not by any means a " Tolerant " religion, so thus many could see that becomming a recipe for disaster. Again we come back to power as spoke about in TSS last post. Power is one root of a 'common evil' in the sense that one becomes so powerful that they begin to make themself there own diety. That is where the link between Religion and Mankind comes in. If one religion puts itself as being the only religion that all must worship or be smit from the earth that's where the question of morality lies, with it's teachings, and it's beleivers, not their history nor with their faith or God.

------------------
Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

sage

10-06-1999, 06:42 PM

Dear Sgt Rock --

Please study Islam before you comment on it. Your opinions will be more informed.

Lee

10-06-1999, 09:30 PM

tss: Those socialists/communists/"workers" (socialist/commie type
revolutions always claim to champion the workers) never had a
legitimate claim to power. The reason I know is simple. There is
no such thing as a "legitimate" socialist/communist goverment.
They're all the same, take away the rights of your citizens, disarm
them and abuse them as long as you can cling to power. No goverment that does that is legitimate.

Secondly, the communist "ideal" is not in any way a good thing.
Taking away people's rights and private property and forcing
them to work for the "common good" is immoral on it's face. No
person has an obligation to use his hard work to support others
against his will. Yeah, everyone in commie countries are equal,
equally miserable. The only place people are equal is in prison.
And that's what commie countries are, giant prisons. Where they
force you to do what they want and be "equal" with everyone else.
There is no such thing as freedom in such a system. That's why
these socialist governments always take away the guns of the
citizens. So the citizens can't overthrow their corrupt philosophy
when they find out how rotten it is. But then it's too late,
the chains are already in place and it's very hard to get free of
them. The Nazi's did it and all communist governments do it.
None of them are worth a dime. So, I reiterate, if any socialists
(Nazi's, commies, whatever) try to take over a country they should
all be put to the sword as quickly as possible. Too bad the
tens of millions of people murdered by these left-wing
governments can't post on this board.

Pixman

10-07-1999, 01:06 AM

Guys,

Stacey came through like a trooper. She'll be giving me marching orders again in a week or so. We very much appreciate all of the kindness and prayers you have expressed on this board the past few days. You are a first class bunch of guys and I am honored to know you.

I have enjoyed reading the philosophy/theology tonight, but you'll get none from me (I know that is breaking some hearts, lol) -- just sleep, ssleeep, ssssllleeeeeeeepzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz

------------------
Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

Big Time Software

10-07-1999, 01:22 AM

Lee, you are confusing the reality of Communisim with the theory. I agree that in theory there is much good in Communism. The problem is the only way to make it work is through obligation, which means the removal of choice, which in turn requires force to achieve. Force then turns into its own ugly beast and gains its own reason for being. That is why Communism on any mass scale will never work. But again, this is the reality, not the theory.

As far as being legit or not, that is up to the majority (hopefully) of the people to decide. If the majority wish to have something a certain way, then it is legit. There are many people that REALLY wanted what Communism and Socialism (birds of a feather back in the early part of the century) had to offer BECAUSE the current system of government they were rulled by was NOT supported by the majority of the people. Therefore, the existing govenerment in such cases has NO MORE CLAIM TO POWER than the Communists or other groups seeking to take over. Tzarist Russia certainly didn't have the people backing it in an overwhelming way.

When Russia disintegrated after the defeat of its armies in 1917 there was a power vacuum. As TSS stated, this was the case in Finnland. Therefore there was legitimate claims to power by MORE than ONE group. Happens all the time. So the two duked it out and the "better side" won. In Russia it was the Reds under Lennin, in Finnland it was the Whites. Both were legitimate heirs to the previous rullers. Just because you don't like the reality of Communism, you can not take that away from them. The majority in Russia WANTED a Communist government. Why? Because it promised to be better and more accountable than the previous system. Of course it turned out to be as bad, if not worse, but that doesn't mean it wasn't legit.

As a side note, less than about 30% of Americans elect their public officials. A "landslide" vote is when one candidate gets 51% or more of the total vote. This means that about 15% (+/-) actually voted for the person holding office. It makes you wonder how well the Democratic system works as a true voice of the people when 85% aren't directly represented.

Steve

Lee

10-07-1999, 02:19 AM

"If the majority wish to have something a
certain way, then it
is legit." <-- Steve

Steve: This notion is incorrect. At one time in this country
most people thought it was fine to own and beat a black man if
they wanted to. That didn't make it right.
Right and wrong is
not subject to a popularity poll. If the majority of people
decide that sticking Jews in gas chambers is ok and elect Nazi's
to power to carry out that wish, does that make that government
and it's actions legitimate? I think not. If a government has
as it's core beliefs priciples that are immoral, then they
are nothing more than a band of criminals, whether or not the
masses were foolish enough to put them there in the first place.
All that does is speak ill of the morality and wisdom of the
masses, not strengthen the legitimacy of the government. It's
not right to violate the rights of an individual just because
the majority says it's ok to abuse them.

Moon

10-07-1999, 05:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If the majority of people
decide that sticking Jews in gas chambers is ok and elect Nazi's
to power to carry out that wish, does that make that government
and it's actions legitimate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might be a simple question from the moral point of view, but legally there are many ?s. Who should sit judge over such a nation and who should prosecute? Can another nation intervene although the government has been elected fairly? And so on...
Many of these questions are relevant for some of the conflicts on the Balkan, too. But - to make that clear - these are legal questions, and moral and law have somewhat different points of view here.

guachi

10-07-1999, 06:37 AM

Steve,

Having studied the Communist Manifesto for an economics class, I agree with Lee. There is nothing good even in the theory of Communism.

Its first tenet is the abolition of private property.

"In this sense,the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property"
- Communist Manifesto

A government that has no problem taking your private property by force of law or arms will have little problem taking your most precious private property, your life and freedom.

I grabbed the quote from a 20 sec. search on yahoo under Communist Manifesto. It's the same link (in Australia) that my teacher used for my econ class several years ago. It's amazing how morally bankrupt and how much a product of its time the Manifesto is.

You could do worse during your time waitng for CM than reading the Communist Manifesto.

Jason

Los

10-07-1999, 02:48 PM

BTW I don't know if this has been mentioned but there was a good book that came out a few years back (Sorry can't remember the name!) that details hundreds of thousands of German POW deaths that occured in "Western ALlied" POW camps in 1945-48 primarily due to disease, exposure ad malnutrition. These were sort of skirted over by the allies after the war. Of course then there were the Russian POW camps. It may not ahve been due to any deliberate policy on the US/UK/French but due to incompetence and mismanageent. Wich I could remember the name of the book. I'll have to peruse Barbes and Noble.

Los

tss

10-07-1999, 03:21 PM

Los wrote:
BTW I don't know if this has been mentioned but there was a good book that came out a few years back (Sorry can't remember the name!) that details hundreds of thousands of German POW deaths that occured in "Western ALlied" POW camps in 1945-48 primarily due to disease, exposure ad malnutrition.

I haven't read the book (and to tell the truth, I can't remember its name), but I've read some discussion about it. The general opinion was that the author had done a sloppy research and gone after shock value. A large number of POWs were released without going through all official paperwork and the author counted all those cases as deaths.

However, it is true that conditions in Western Allied POW camps in Europe were quite horrible in 1945-47. I think that the generally accepted death count is about 50000 starved.

Last spring I happened to see a five minute snippet of a documentary (I had to run for a bus so I couldn't see more). In it, I saw pictures of skeletonlike prisoners. My first reaction was: "Oh, there is again some documentary about the Holocaust". I was quite surprised when the narrator next said that the men in the pictures were German POWs held by Americans. The pictures were taken by a Red Cross official who was inspecting the camps.

- Tommi

Fionn

10-07-1999, 03:41 PM

I just want to pop in here and make a few points:

About Islam and the Quran (Koran)… I think it’s a shame most Westerners (although by no means all) seem to assume that all actions committed by Muslims during war and terrorist struggles are sanctioned by the Koran. Christian Serbs raped Muslim women in Bosnia and Kosovo in exactly the same way that Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina raped Christian (Orthodox Church) women in Bosnia…

It is always interesting to see how people readily dismiss the actions of the christians as being perpetrated by “bad individuals” but often simply assume that Islam condones and in fact encourages rapes and the other heinous acts which its followers sometimes commit during war.

Islam has a very similar outlook on what is right and wrong as Christianity BUT just as with every religion the world over during wars and even during peace some crackpots who profess to follow that religion will commit atrocities. When Christians nations fight their governments often utilise religious fervour as a motivational factor (the communist recognition AND utilisation of religion during the Second World War and the Nazi party’s usage of NSADP chaplains to motivate its troops are prime examples of this on the Eastern Front.. Neither Hitler nor Stalin had any love for Christianity, Stalin because he was a communist and Hitler because he felt that Christianity was a weak religion… In fact Hitler often bemoaned the defeat of the Muslim armies at Tours by Charlemagne (I may have the location wrong.. It’s been a while since I read any medieval history) since he felt that the certainty of Islam would have allowed him to USE IT to motivate his troops and instil them with more unquestioning devotion.

Anyways, the point is that a good leader wants committed troops and that those leaders utilise whatever motivational tools are at their disposal. Westerners have a great deal of difficulty understanding the cult of the suicide bomber. I’ve talked with many Muslims about these issues (about one-third of my year in college are Muslim and I am friends with people from Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Egypt, The West Bank, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc) and suicide is actually a crime against Allah in their religion. The poor kids who actually do the suicide bombings usually haven’t even read the Quran for themselves and are given VERY “selective quotations” from the Quran and convinced that in a Jihad any method of killing one’s enemies is allowed which is NOT what the Quran says and is NOT what has been preached by the Imams in previous Jihads.

These kids are convinced that the Quran says it’s ok AND are told that their families will be given new homes, free healthcare, free schooling and a chance to get all the breaks they never got. So, motivated by a misunderstanding of the Quran and a desire to spend their lives for the betterment of their families they go out and blow themselves and a whole load of women and children up. After they die the Israeli government bulldozes the homes of ALL their family members in retaliation (official policy) and Hezbollah rehouses the families and allowes them access to special “martyrs” hospitals and schools.

The attitude of the Muslims from the gulf states and even Palestine and the West Bank has been that what these kids do is wrong BUT that they are being taken advantage by terrorist leaders who convince them, falsely, that the Quran advocates such actions.

In any case the vast majority of the fighting in the Middle East is about land and resources. The fact that the two camps also follow different religions has merely given the leaders something simple to manipulate to motivate their troops. It also greatly simplifies the task of teaching your people who to hate and, in Israel, has been a very important and simple way of determining who to discriminate against and ethnically cleanse ( just go back to the early years of Israeli history and read some non-American accounts to see what I mean). Hell, Israel’s government, which now rails against terrorism was progenated from the largest terrorist group in the Palestine area. They even murdered two British officers who had gone to their leaders to negotiate for a truce.

The Middle East is a very complicated region where the real reasons for conflict are obscured by the propaganda issues and possibilities inherent in there being two distinct religious groups present. To say the fight there is due to religion is as incorrect as to say Catholics and Protestants or Nationalists and Unionists were at war in the North of Ireland. They were not. Republicans and Loyalists were at war. That not all Catholics were Nationalists and not all Nationalists were Republicans is something which complicated a news reporters job and is something that could not be conveyed in a 30 second soundbite so, to the rest of the world, it became a war between Catholics and Protestants and became widely misunderstood therefore. The same happened, I feel, in Bosnia (although not in Kosovo) and has happened in the Middle East. It is unfortunate these days that news reports are so short that only the most basic of pictures can be given and so incorrect generalisations become the conventional wisdom upon which decisions and opinions are based.

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

tss

10-07-1999, 04:01 PM

In fact Hitler often bemoaned the defeat of the Muslim armies at Tours by Charlemagne (I may have the location wrong.. It’ been a while since I read any medieval history)

Just nitpicking...

It was Charlemagne's grandfather Charles Martell who won Muslims at Tours (Poitiers) in 732.

- Tommi

Fionn

10-07-1999, 06:52 PM

Thanks Tss.. I knew I had gotten some part wrong, just didn't know which part http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Was Martell of royal lineage or just a noble?

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Pixman

10-07-1999, 07:32 PM

....just by chance you crossed a diamond with a pearl, you turned it on the world, that's when you turned the world around. Did you feel lke Jesus? Did you realize that you were a champion in their eyes?

Get along Kid Charlemagne. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Fionn:

You mentioned a lot of Muslim friends and associates. Know any Indian Hindus? I do, and have read some on the Muslim incursion into the subcontinent. It was not pretty. Numerous as they were, a bunch of pacifistic Hindus were no match for an organized band of Muslims on a "holy" mission. These were not onesy twosy misguided Arab boys but whole armies wreaking some serious havoc.

Your comment about Hitler's yearning for Muslims to manipulate rather than Catholics and Evangelisch Protestants speaks volumes. The Muslim faith fits much more closely with the paternalistic and autocratic philosophy which helped drive the Nazi movement. The Germans, on the whole, ate this kind of stuff up. Even their legal system of today reflects this "there is a right way and a wrong way, and it is not for me to question" mentality. I say this because the entire German legal code is statutory. That is, there is no Common Law precedent system that leaves room for judges to make new interpretations and rulings based on changing technology, social mores, values, novel situations, etc.. (Does anybody remember what happened to the guy who stabbed Monica Seles on the tennis court when she was, hands down, the number one tennis player in the world? The answer is, not much because there were not specific legal codes to deal with such an odd occurrence) They actually believe that all possible legal situations may be anticipated and accounted for through statutes. The philosophy behind such a legal code is very dangerous. It reveals a mindset that is not prone to questioning authority. Hitler fed heavily off of this. Though no expert on the subject, I think there is some corrolary of strong obedience in the Muslim faith, which may contribute to the reference Fionn makes to Hitler.

Pixman

------------------
Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

buddy

10-07-1999, 07:45 PM

a true story for sage, sgt rock and whomever else. . .

I saw the 'highway to hell', the road from Kuwait City to Basra, where we creamed the Iraqis retreating with mucho stolen merchandise in stolen vehicles. Unbelieveable. Anyway, I'm smoking a Marlboro and up comes 3 Arabic-types. They asked for some cigarettes, we introduced ourselves and had a conversation about where we all were from. I squatted in the dirt and drew a rough drawing of the US and Indiana (blah, blah, blah) and as we were all squatting there I started asking them if they liked the allied troops - "American, very much" they all agreed. They loved everyone. So I, motivated out of curiosity mainly, asked them how they liked the Israelis. Their collective faces went emotionless - I mean deadpan - they stood up, literally dusted themselves off and left without another word. I guess my point is that I tend to agree with Sgt. Rock - many muslims in that part of the world see everyone else as inferior and unclean. They would, if they could, push Israel into the sea without another thought. People are people, I know, and there is good and bad wherever you go, but that type of intolerance is simply very, very ugly - and, it seemed to me, very commonplace.

Fionn

10-07-1999, 08:36 PM

Pixman,

Yes, I know quite a few Hindus, mainly from India. Also some Sikhs, a few Taoists, a few atheists, some more agnostics, even one person who still puts great faith in his tribe's witchdoctors (he's from Africa).

As for the incursions from the Middle East into India I would like to caution you in your assumptions. You show a common Western conceit (and it's a bit racist unfortunately). I actually touched on the point I'm about to make in my initial post but will couch it in stronger and barer terms now so everyone can see it clearly.

You write NOT of an incursion of armies FROM the Middle East but of an incursion by Muslims. You say these armies committed great atrocities and infer that their doing so was in some way related to them being Muslim. I think the reason they committed many atrocities was simply because that was they way things were done back then, whether Christian or Muslim.

One other point I'd like you to consider Pixley is if those armies had been Christian would you have blamed the RELIGION or the LEADER AND HIS MEN for the atrocities? There is a certain racism in many Westerners vis a vis Islam whereby anything evil done by a Moslem is DUE to Islam whereas its a simple manifestation of the cruelty of ALL HUMANS regardless of religion.

The Muslim faith in its purest form DOES allow for interpretation. Again the view of Islam as a faith demanding blind obedience etc is quite flawed. Imams make rulings on ethical issues which their followers are FREE to accept or argue against. If the followers argue against those rulings they must do so by quoting the Quran whereupon all present will discuss how the writings of the Quran should be interpreted.

While it is true to say that a true follower's life must be based on the Quran it does NOT state it must be based on unquestioned obedience. This is a misunderstanding which permeates Western understanding of Islam. Sure there are Islamic fundamentalists who behave as despicably as Christian, Hindu, Sikh etc fundamentalists BUT they actions of these people are NOT manifestations of inherent leanings of those religiions but rather of inherent failures in those humans.

Again, if Christians did it we'd condemn their INDIVIDUAL actions but because so few of us have had much contact with Islam we all too often condemn those INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS by assuming the whole is responsible.

FWIW I lived with a very religious and fundamental Muslim and his rather lapsed friend (also a Muslim but very lapsed) for close to a year and I've seen my friend, Khaled, studying the Quran and preparing arguments against what his Imam had interpreted the Quran as saying. I've met Chinese, American, European and Middle Eastern Muslims and found most of the preconceptions about them to be quite incorrect (although some of their attitudes and certainty are disagreeable to me).

As for Hitler's comments... Hitler was NOT commenting about any militaristic bent to Islam but merely referring to the fact that true "followers of Mohammed" had a great faith and CERTAINTY which his propaganda machine would find easier to mould into HIS FAITH and CERTAINTY IN HIM than it would find moulding opinions of Christians.

Don't forget that Christianity has borrowed a whole hodge-podge of things from older religions which are nasty too. Christmas falls on the date of an ancient sun-god festival, the original idea of heaven was drawn from old Sumerian religions and the idea of a HOLY WAR in which all who died bypassed purgatory (a Roman Catholic idea which was also borrowed from Sumerian-descended religions) shows many signs of being adapted from valhalla. It is even discussed as being so in old vatican documents from the time of the crusades. When Christianity wanted to motivate people it borrowed from other religions and invented the notion of a holy war. In that Holy War the Christians once slit the throats of forty thousand Muslim men, women and children of Acre and surrounding lands simply out of spite AFTER they had surrendered. Paintings made by Roman Catholic painters of the time show the men going about god's work in captured villages by raping women before slitting their throats all the while being blessed by monks.

It should be borne in mind that these images were sanctioned by the church and were the "acceptable" face of the war. Let's talk about the wonderful things Christianity has sanctioned before we go casting stones shall we?

Certainly Islam looks at anyone who isn't a Muslim as an infidel. That's certainly true. Being an infidel means you haven't heard the word of Allah and accepted it and it means you won't get into Heaven (Paradise)... Umm, guys, talk about double standards here. Christianity, last time I looked, says that non-Christians won't get into heaven either. It also holds that non-Christians haven't heard the words of the one true God either. Seems to me that Christianity and Islam say the same sorts of things about non-believers but we choose to believe the Moslems are some sort of savages because they are more fortright about it.

It always used to be a joke between Khaled and myself that I was an infidel who would burn in the pits of hell while he'd be up in Paradise.. I'd always retort that according to MY God ( whom Khaled would say was merely a construct we believed in because we hadn't heard the words of the one true God) I'd be up in Heaven watching him roast in hell. See, both religions teach the same thing.. They also both teach that THEIR believers are the tolerant ones and that the believers in other gods are misguided and intolerant. It'd all be quite funny if so many people didn't swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker.

As for Israel... You're saying that the Arabs in Saudi Arabia didn't like to be reminded of a country whose government originated from the terrorist organisation which fought the British after World War II and which, used as its standard tactic, the murder of Arabs in isolated farms in an effort to intimidate Arabs living in villages to move away before they too were killed. A country which continues to operate segregation and blatantly racist politics, laws and regulations against the people who lived there prior to the mass influx of Jews, which admits to carrying out illegal attacks in Arab countries (remember in Jordan Israeli agents were captured after attempting to kill an official living there only two years ago) and which has done so, all the while, under the protection of the USA and other Western powers.

Hell, I'm not surprised that, at their moment of victory, when you reminded them of the fact that USA was supporting a country which had ethnically cleansed their fellow Arabs and which continues to racially discriminate against, they felt a bit crestfallen.

If I had just helped free a neighbouring state from oppression and had some GI remind me that millions of other Irish people were being oppressed, tortured and racially discriminated against and ethnically cleansed (by new Jewish settlements) I'd be a little bit annoyed and crestfallen too.

How would you feel if someone took over Nevada against America's will and began to drive Americans out of their homes and pen them up in substandard, crowded areas simply because they felt they had a right to the land. Wouldn't you feel you had a right to strike back against these invaders (which is what Arabs feel them to be).

To my knowledge many Jews and Christians lived quite happily in the region which Israel occupies now prior to the creation of Israel. Arabs are quite tolerant people once you don't cross them and take their lands just like most of us. If you cross them, ethnically cleanse them, torture their old and young, drive them from their lands and racially segregate and oppress them with unfair laws then they get upset JUST LIKE WE WOULD IF IT HAPPENED TO US.

I'm sorry for going on but the stereotyping of Moslems by the West annoys me. I know no-one here is knowingly racist but most westerners really, really, just have picked up a huge amount of almost instinctively accepted stereotypical rationalisations of Islam which are promoted by the media (which doesn't have the time in its 1 minute news slots to fully explore the issues and complexities... I suggest reading Chomsky's discussion about Hermeneutics and observations of media behaviour over the past 30 years to examine this farther.) .

I've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt and changed MY opinions a lot. I believed all the stereotype stuff myself before. I'm not making any judgements over whether or not Israel should survive or not I'm just saying that if you read your history of the late 40s and early 50s in the Middle East you might realise that these hatreds aren't the result of blind religious hatred but are the RESULT of the many murders and ethnic cleanising which preceded the creation of Israel.

___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 10-07-99).]

Xyphorus

10-07-1999, 09:14 PM

Fionn, Charles Martel was the "mayor of Austrassa and Neustria" (714 to 741). Mayor, meaning ruler. Austrassa is roughly the geographical location of Benelux low-countries today, and Neustria refers to the Northern Part of today France. Martel was from the Caroligian dynasty, but it is rather Charlemagne who consolidated the territories, and became the King of Franks, by becoming emperor in 811.
Martel did stop the Maures' invasion in Poitiers (South of tours) in 732. Geographicaly you were not that far when you said Tours http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gifIf he had not stopped the Islamist invasion, Notre Dame could have been a Mosque. And that could have been interesting!

Regarding your comments about Islam and how it is perceived by most Westerners, I could not agree more with you. Islam is like any religion, it has its hard-liners, and its moderates. But, keep in mind that Western Europeans are more in daily contact with Muslims than North Americans. They can see the many political and religious faces of islam. I am French and lives in the U.S, and I can tell you from my own experience that the U.S media is very bais in its coverage of the Middle East situation. As you pointed out, they seem to forget the early period of Palestine/Israel conflict, as for instance that the Irgoon (spe?)was an jewish terrorist organisation even in today standards. They use blind violence to achieve their means, and got what they wanted: an almost ethnically pure Jewish state. Do the U.S media ever run a documentary about the slaughter of Sabra and Shatila Palestinian camps? No. Do they mention in which horrific conditions the Palestinian refugees live in the Gaza strip or annexed/occupied territories? No. So, the Palestinians got more radical, and used and still use today terrorism as a political mean to acheive a bit of autonomy.
I am in no way a "defender/advocat" of the Palestinian or Israeli cause. But, as mentionned earlier in the thread in a discussion about Communism, the Palestinians are also fighting from their land and their freedom. Since Israel won the 1967 war, it occupies and promotes new settlements in all former Palestinian territories. What does the world expect from the Palestinians, to stand by and get wiped out, like the Native Americans. They have been cornered, and also used by some other fellow islamist countries.
They certainly have chosen the wrong path in embrassing the strategy of global terrorism.
This region of the world is so rich, so full of hate and strategical allainces, that we surely will not see the end of it soon.

Well, signing off!

Karl

Fionn

10-07-1999, 09:25 PM

Thanks for speaking up Karl, I was a bit worried that my comments would be misinterpreted when they are in fact merely an attempt to show a side which is often missed out and forgotten in today's media-created conventional wisdom.

FWIW I agree that terrorism has been the wrong way to go but I think that outside states have cynically utilised the dissafected Palestinian youths and created terrorist groups which further THOSE STATES' aims and not the aims of the Palestinians. Of course, that's as it has always been... It sucks for the Palestinians and those whom they kill in terrorist attacks for little gain though.

------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

Mattias

10-07-1999, 09:56 PM

Pixman,

Reading your last post it suddenly became clear to me what I had liked about your previous ones. At least I got the feeling you were voicing the opinion that there, despite all, still are values that could be considered absolute. Now, the beauty of it, as I saw it, was that you didn’t seem to attribute these values to any specific religion, race, ideology or whatever. They just are there, for one and all.

Now, I might have misinterpreted you totally there... but...

Suddenly you take pot shots on Roman Law. Why??

All of continental Europe has developed and still develops under national adaptations of this legal tradition. You don’t seriously think we are some kind of moles blind to the obvious questions that can be raised against the validity of our system of law or government, do you?

For sure, these generalisations of yours contains pieces of important issues. But we confront these very issues daily. They are part of the evolution of our legislation, parts of our system of government, our principles for division of power and our concept of justice.

We deal with them having the same ultimate goal in mind as you have, a just and free society.

As much truth as your words may hold, they nevertheless become pretty much pointless as you, intentionally or not, disregard just about everything that governs these matters in actual real life over here.

What happened in Germany in the 30s was probably the greatest collapse ever of a legal system in terms of loss of basic justification. The reasons for this catastrophy, however, is not to be found in the legal system as such but in Nazi power politics that in short order completely removed the legal foundations, but kept the outer semblance of law in order to justify their essentially unjust actions.

Any legal system is vulnerable to this kind of assault, any and all.

M http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Lee

10-08-1999, 02:39 AM

Fionn: There have been a lot of horrible things done in the
name of christianity and the catholic church certainly shouldn't
have been endorsing those sorts of paintings as a good way to
have fought a war (of course, the catholic church teaches a
lot of things to this day in it's church traditions that
aren't supported in the Bible, but that's another story...).
But that sort of conduct isn't what christianity is all
about. The problem is that men are so very fallible and often
don't teach accurately what the Bible says. That's why it's each
individual's responsibility to read the Bible for himself (with
prayerful seeking of guidance and understanding from God)
to check out what men say is in the Bible and see if they have it
right. Relying on men to be perfect and lead you on exactly the
right path is dangerous and foolish. You have to do your
homework and read for yourself. God expects you to care enough
about finding out the truth to take at least a little time to
read the letter he wrote to *you*. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Oh, and the Israelies were taking back land that was given to
them by God himself. They may not have always gone about
exactly the right way of waging the battle to retake it, but it
was by right their's. Some may disagree with that, but I stand by
what God says in the Bible on the subject. If the tribes of
Israel had not been captured and scattered to and fro almost 2
thousand years ago, they would never have left there in the
first place and none of this would have had to have happened.
But the Bible said that Israel would become a nation again and,
against all odds, it did. Isn't it cool how God's never wrong?
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Pixman: I'm glad to hear your wife is well. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Big Time Software

10-08-1999, 03:33 AM

OK, I need to close this thread up. Generally I try to do this around 135k for safety and loadtime reasons, but we are at 170k+ right now http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

I think this has been a very deep thread. Almost makes me think you guys do things other than play games all day http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif I have a feeling that this thread could continue to morph and expand forever, so now is not such a bad time to shut it down. Waaaaaaaay off topic anyhoo http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

I do want to say a word of thanks to everybody that posted to this thread. There are numberous topics in this thread that could have started a huge flame war, but there was not even a hint of that. I am very happy and proud that people here kept it on the intellectual level.

And now I take the liberty of the last word...

Earlier I had stated that the theory of Commnuism is not necessarily the be all, end all of evil. Though since it could never work on a large scale its value as a political organization of course makes any possible good impossible to realize. However, the notion that private property is the litmus test of any "legit" society is very Western and should not be applied blindly to the rest of the world. I like my private property, thank you very kindly http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif, but I was brought up in a society where such designations are necessary since it is the founding principle of pretty much every social rule there is. However, much greed comes from this, and that in turn is the root cause of many of Western society's ills (haves and have nots). Obviously Communism doesn't solve these problems, but again it is because of the execution of those principles (i.e. the necessary use of force) not necessarily because the ideas themselves are wrong. Of course, ideals that are not practical for a given situation/time/place are not very useful.

The Native American peoples had no concept of strict personal property, and neither do many other tribal cultures around the world. Life works out for them as well, if not better in some ways, as Western cultures. To say that those societies are not ligitimate SIMPLY because they do not have private property is an unacceptable conclusion IMHO. I try not to force my Western belief system on someone else's simply because it is different.

Yes, something can be morally and legally wrong even if it is the majority's wish, but a government backed by the majority of the population should not be dismissed out of hand simply because you do not agree with its principles. I may not agree with the government in question, and might even find it disgusting, but that doesn't make it illegit. US States sometimes pass laws that are in violation of the Constituion and even human rights, but I don't think we should send in the Army to straighten them out by putting bullets in people's heads. Externally I do not agree with the policy of the former government of Israel on many issues, and even think they were/are agressive, immoral, and harmful to Middle East peace, but I would never go so far as to say it is not a legitimate government because of MY beliefs. That is for the Israelies to decide, not me. The same applies to Finnland 1918. If the majority wanted to try out Communism (which, BTW hadn't been proved to be an evil at the time), it is not for me to sit in judgement. I am not a Finn, so it is initially none of my concern. This could change as time goes on of course, but until it does it is none of my business.

Steve