You know - Kill 300,000 innocent civilians like Truman did to end WWII.
Lets hear all the situational ethics pleeeeease. It just shows the double standard you need to exist.
2007-09-23 15:03:58 · 9 answers · asked by Libsuc 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What war? Congress hasn't declared any war.
If you mean the "war on terror" -- that's a marketing phrase -- and unwinnable. You cannot reasonably declare war on a concept or a tactic or an emotion -- and you certainly cannot defeat a concept or tactic by force of arms.
If you mean the "war in Iraq" -- that a civil war, and we're not one of the sides. We're getting killed as collateral damage, because we refuse to leave a war zone while other people are fighting each other.
No -- dropping nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of more people will not end the violence -- all it will do is make more people hate the US. Unless you want to commit genocide, and a kill everyone over there -- they are going to continue fighting each other as they have for the past 1200 years -- and all the US can do is either get in the way, or fan the flames.
The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan ended the war with Japan for two reasons -- one because the US was one of the sides, and because all of the Japanese were on the same one other side -- and because it changed the way the Japanese people viewed their leader, who until that point had been considered an incarnate god -- and that change in religious belief caused a change in political attitude.
The same cannot be said of anything happening in the Middle East -- there is not one single "other side" who could surrender -- and such an action would not cause the same type of emotional reaction -- it would just provoke more hatred.
Situational ethics has nothing to do with it -- the situations are massively different on their facts and on the predictable strategic effects of the proposed actions.
2007-09-23 15:14:54 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Actually you've described the republican approach. Many Y!A republicans say the middle east should be nuked, and that Truman was the last good democratic president.
In any case current democrats aren't ethically responsible for what Truman did or didn't do any more than current republicans are responsible for the jim crow laws and practices of the 1940's and 1950's south.
Actually you've described the republican approach. Many Y!A republicans say the middle east should be nuked, and that Truman was the last good democratic president
2007-09-23 22:40:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
One of the things we should do in the actual war (on terror) is to capture or kill the mastermind of 9/11, Osama Bin Laden. I can figure that out and I'm not even a strategic planner.
2007-09-23 22:12:35 · answer #3 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we should just withdraw gradually when it becomes prudent to do so. I haven't heard anybody suggest the nukes although it is my understanding that our arsenal is growing. I don't take any responsibility for what Truman did. I wasn't even born yet.
2007-09-23 22:16:02 · answer #4 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are asking people to justify something that happened before most of them were born.
Were today's Young Republicans responsible for the stock Market crash of 1929?
2007-09-23 22:10:59 · answer #5 · answered by October 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
We have killed nearly 100,000 and it doesn't seem to have got us anywhere. Typical Republican idea - "let's kill more!"
2007-09-23 22:20:11 · answer #6 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Huh?
Are you saying that we should use a nuke in Iraq? Are you comparing Iraq to WWII? I really have NO idea what your point is.
2007-09-23 22:09:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Parties don't kill people, people do.
2007-09-23 22:08:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You are clearly correct.
2007-09-23 22:13:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋