So if little Adolph got the puppy he wanted for Christmas, there wouldn't have been a Holocaust? You are too silly.
Mentally disturbed people should of course be locked up, away from the possibility to harm others. In the case of Hitler, we blame him, but what was it about the people who followed him that made him powerful enough to control their though processes and guide them in the direction of evil actions? Understanding the dynamics of how essentially good people who become followers can be so easily influenced by severely deranged individuals who twist and pervert, who preach violence and hate, is essential if there is going to be real change in the middle east. It is during times of economic hardship and a sense of powerlessness of the masses that these types of leaders emerge, offering a simple black and white solution, a scapegoat, and a simplistic US versus Them plan. No wonder Bush still maintains popularity, he is preaching fear to the masses during a time of economic hardship and a sense of powerlessness of the masses. We can only hope that the people of this country will choose to think for themselves over the false sense of security offered by these deranged leaders.
Am I the only one who noticed that ART's so-called "sources" were nuclear freeze movement whackos? I am deeply suspicious of this oral history that is nowhere documented. No doubt there is some truth to the observation that part of Truman's rationale was to give the Soviets a demonstration of our power, but given the extent to which they had infiltrated FDR's administration, that was hardly necessary. The Japanese were extremely lucky that we didn't drop more nukes on them. ART and his nuclear free crowd feel sacrificing tens of thousands of soldiers would have been a small price to pay to maintain our nuclear virginity. I disagree, and so did Truman and the vast majority of Americans, then and now. If the Japanese had won WW II, can anyone contemplate the horror they would have inflicted on us? Their actions in china and the Phillipines are probably only a small hint of what we would have suffered. To this day those of us whose ancestors survived would be living as slaves to the Emperor. I'm sure that doesn't bother ART and the rest of the blame America chorus, since he has the ethical training to understand their motivation, but everytime I think about it I wish Truman had dropped another half dozen nukes on those bastards.
Actually an "exercise [sic] in moral equivalency" is quite the opposite than what you describe above. By definition, judging "equivalency" is to judge what is equal (while you refer to us as "intoxicated with the moral superiority"). Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, "engaging in "moral equivalency" is typically an "exercise" in which someone makes an argument that essentially equates nearly all acts and codes as equally moral.
WHAT IS THE SOURCE?? These numbers appear absurd. Some of these suggestions appear as revisionist history (many honest and clear thinking people who lived and fought during the time recall the reasons for dropping the atom bomb-to save US lives and end the war-very clearly). And the claim that Japan, who didn't even surrender after the first nuke and was still fighting viciously, and who was still killing and torturing American POWs, was about to surrender is hiiiiiiilarious!
You wish we had dropped half a dozen nukes on them? How utterly barbaric. Oh, so the vast majority of Americans holding a belief makes the belief right? Then slavery was right, denying women the vote was right, murdering Indians to take their land was right, etc., etc., etc.,. Some people evolve, others remain right wing republican extremists.
First the theoretical part. If someone MUST make a decision, and that decision is between evil and a lesser evil, than no, the person cannot be held responsible for supporting evil. Examples are not even hard to come by. Secondly, tell me now where Christians kill those who don't convert. As you said, "perhaps we are more evolved." Implying that everyone is completely morally equivalent because Western states are not absolutely perfect is absurd. NO peoples are without mistakes in their history, and more importantly, no state is going to go without making some foreign policy mistake in the future (whether by the actions they take or the actions they don't take). Some of these mistakes are FAR WORSE and full of malice than others. More importantly, does a nation's foreign (or even domestic) policy mistake mean that that nation later shouldn't defend itself or fight religious fundamentalists who seek to kill everyone who does not accept their beliefs, overthrow all governments that don't practice their extreme practices, and oppress women and suppress basic liberties? Hardly!
Democrat, Republican or Texan You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You're carrying a Smith & Wesson revolver and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do? Democrat's Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the pistol have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion. Republican's Answer: BANG! Texan's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click click click... Pretty self explanatory.
History is full of examples of Christians who killed those who did not convert. We have evolved since those times, and in the same way I see no reason that the current Muslim leadership can't also evolve, given the followers enjoy the same level of economic prosperity on a mass scale that we do. Yes, we are not perfect. Then why does the Bush administration act as if they are? How many admissions of mistake, fault, error, stupidity, poor planning, evil actions have they admitted to? Lesser evil is still evil. Self defense is one thing if survival depends on it. Iraq was not self defense, it was and is an example of offensive self serving foreign policy. Why is Castro still in power, if our mission is to liberate the oppressed people of the world?
First of all, that is a ridiculous generalization. We are not saying killing is wrong. We are saying killing the innocent, particularly killing the innocent on purpose, is wrong! Secondly, you are saying we are consistent because the US, given its resources as well as its interests, must pick and choose where it involves itself. We have gotten involved many times for humanitarian reasons in countries that had no strategic importance to us, but the fact is that nations, like people, often have to pick their battles. I hope you are just young, naive and ignorant, because if you haven't figured out that people (and for the same reason, states) must pick their battles, no matter how principled and active they are, then you are obviously someone who does not learn from experience (I won't mention what that is the definition of). If there is a good argument against going into Iraq, it is that we didn't do a good job prioritizing, not that Sadaam wasn't a threat or that he wasn't one of the worst rulers in the world. But given the greater threats lurking, Iraq should not have been our first priority. Let's also remember that Tillman died in, of all places, Afghanistan, fighting al Quada and al-queda aligned and extreme oppressors the Taliban. And he did this following their attack on the US, one that intentionally killed thousands of civilians (and sought to kill many thousands more). He did this after they killed a couple thousand natives in Kenya and Tanzania, in order to destroy our embassies and kill a few Americans. They planned more attacks, had many more attacks foiled, and weren't even willing to negotiate on turning bin Laden over. Now the US is helping to rebuild the country, has helped millions of women to gain freedom and get an education, and is working to create a stable democracy (with the blessing of the entire world, and the support of many nations, by the way). And you actually call this arrogant, you refer to this as failing to try to understand the terrorists point of view, and you describe this as morally equivalent? You are amazing!