Ethics of pilots fighting for the sides in WWII

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by SEE

The West should and must do more to give Palestine its freedom

Come on now...the PLO had it's chance when Clinton was in office with the Oslo peace accords. So close...it is really a shame. Remember the West does support Palestine. Also remember that the USA did not create Israel or be the cause of it's creation either

What you have stated sounds a lot like appeasement to me! Did you not learn from the history of Europe in the 1930's?? The USA sure did and that is why we land up being the world's policeman

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by SEE

But why are people plotting? You can kill individuals, destroy towns anhilate an entire region but defeating an 'idea' is impossible. The state of Israel was borne from 'terrorism' with acts of terrorism plotted and carried out not least against the British Army. 'Terrorism' is a tactical strategy to a political end. Israeli, IRA, Basque separists, French Resistance, Al-Quaeda, Taliban, etc use subversive tacitcs that we brand as 'terrorism' and essentially for the same reasons.
The West should and must do more to give Palestine its freedom and, make no mistake, the Taliban will be offered some political control over Afghanistan. It is already recognised that we cannot defeat them militarily but to continue the hostility and try to force them into the political arena.

So you would advocate for capitulation.

I would say it is a fallacy that an "idea" cannot be beaten. The superiority of the Aryan race was an idea that was defeated. The superiority of the Japanese people and their "destiny" to rule Asia was an idea that was defeated. "Death to non believers" is an idea that can be defeated.

Thank you for your views on Israel, they are telling. Thank you also for legitimizing the use of terror tactics as a logical means to an end. Again, that is telling. The moral equivalencies you see are chilling, but I thank you for your honesty.

BTW, the Palestinians will never have a homeland that would satisfy those who hate Israel. The only solution that would satisfy people of that mind would be to wipe out Israel....hmmmm....sounds chillingly familiar. As long as Israel exists (and let's face it, that means as long as the Jews have a homeland, right?) the Palestinians will continue to be used as pawns by those who would seek to destroy Israel and, thus, the Jews.

Or....we all make such a mindset untenable.

Splitter

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Splitter

The superiority of the Aryan race was an idea that was defeated. The superiority of the Japanese people and their "destiny" to rule Asia was an idea that was defeated. "

You really need to study the facts more.

Eugenics and racial superiority was a tenant of National Socialism.

The issue in Japan was the rise of Militarism. In particular the principle that civilians had no right interfering in military affairs. There was also the belief that if a country/culture had the strongest army that was proof that the morals and philosophy of that country were superior.

They are quite different.

Whilst often accused of Fascism, of the two, the 21st century United States is far closer to the views of Japanese Militarism than it is to National Socialism.

[Splitter]

No Galway, apparently you need to study the facts more. Or take the blinders off. I'm not sure which prompted your response, you are usually not like that. You know that eugenics and racism were not exclusive to the Nazis. Heck, I am sure you are itching to point out how the US sent Japanese to concentration camps (without the torture, starvation, ovens, and gas chambers but still, admittedly, racist).

First hint is chancorro. A very similar term was used by the Nazis. I think we could agree that racism was practiced by the Nazis leading up to and during WWII, yes?

This term and a perversion of the practice of Shinto (normally a very peaceful religion) led to the atrocities committed by the Japanese military. These atrocities were every bit as sickening as what was done in the Nazi concentration camps.

Now....you call it militarism. It was used and encouraged by the military, but the bottom line is that it was a belief in racial superiority. It was a view that the Japanese were superior as a race and anything done to the the lesser races was fine because they were "chancorro". The Japanese were created by the Sun Goddess (or God, I forget which). I am fairly sure that is symbolized by the rising sun, but don't quote me on it.

Your last barb made me lol. (c'mon, you're better than that)

Splitter

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Splitter

"Death to non believers" is an idea that can be defeated.

You really believe that?
(Well, maybe, I'll get to it later)

BTW, the Palestinians will never have a homeland that would satisfy those who hate Israel

Maybe - maybe not. I think it's worth a try.
There two problems which have to be solved.
1st:
Stop building Jewish construction on conquered land.
(If you did that my country I'd bomb you too)
http://www.leedspsc.org.uk/?page_id=23


2nd:
Solve economical problems.
If you let them develop some level of prosperity, their interest to fight the Jews next door will decrease too.
(Yes I now, the Palestinians, and Israelis, involved in the back market will actually fight this idea)
- Make sure they get a working trading harbor
- Give them access to an airport, maybe build them a small one
- a "land bridge" to the gaza strip wouldn't hurt either


And: Make sure they learn to read and write. illiterates are way easier to manipulate than ppl who can fall back to different sources of information.
First ones have to believe all the crap you tell them.
This last point would also serve in Afghanistan and Afrika. In Afghanistan they are at least trying.
This way, maybe, you can also fight the "death to infidels" ideology.

Sure you can. That guy plotting in his basement is probably alone, probably unstable, and probably doesn't have access to chemical, biological, or radioactive weapons. Take away his conduit to those resources and the damage he can do is probably limited.

Seriously, you really think they are stockpiling "chemical, biological, or radioactive weapons" in their f***ing caves?


If you really want to cut their resources, you'll have to stop using oil, that's where the big money comes from. The opium in Afghanistan probably can only finance their domestic operations.

We see, we cant cut their money flow off, concerning their ABC weapons you'll have to rely on intel.
(waterboarding is ok as far as I am concerned, personally I'd go even further)

[moilami]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Sure you can. That guy plotting in his basement is probably alone, probably unstable, and probably doesn't have access to chemical, biological, or radioactive weapons. Take away his conduit to those resources and the damage he can do is probably limited.

BTW....just how should we go after and find that guy plotting in his basement? Should we do nothing? Is capitulation the answer?

It's easy to criticize, much harder to come up with solutions.

Splitter

You have finally realized there is nothing much you can do against modern querilla warfare? It took long. I bet it would had helped if you first asked Germans about French underground movement and RAF, Spanish about ETA, Italians about Mafia, British about IRA, and Israelis about PLO.

You Americans have this problem that you think you can just declare a war and get what you want. However you failed in War against drugs, you failed in Vietnam, and you fail in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No, this is not "hindsight". I have said this 10 years ago. I said also it was anyway clever move by you to begin to cry for help by stating "if you are not with us, you are against us" or whatever bullshit it was. Governments around Europe felt the need to show how "terrorism is not tolerated" in addition to begin to be colonialism wannabees in the name of "international co-operation". However anyone who has read Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern knew modern querilla warfare would move to Europe as a result, and therefore EU should not participate on a fight it can't even engage with conventional warfare.

So, you got the oil and we got the xxxx. Things went as planned. Bush also got his second season as your president, weapon companies and military got more money and relevant shareholders become richer. Talk about who won the war. But who lost the war? Common people around Europe, USA, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to name a few. Yeah, that is you.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I personally can’t see this thread leading anywhere positive. It is has gone off topic and degenerated into something nasty. I think it should be locked.

That being said, I work on a daily basis with adolescents, many who come from refugee backgrounds (from all over the world). Some of these children come from families that fled the atrocities inflicted upon the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein. In the last year or so there have been a couple of these families that have gained the confidence to return to their homeland and rejoin their people.

If anyone is the winner from the Iraqi conflict it is people like these families.

Was the conflict in Iraq worth it? Only time will tell.

Would it have been better for the Coalition to have done nothing? I doubt it. Hussein was a butcher! http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

The worst thing that could possibly happen for Iraq would be for the Coalition to pull out before the Iraqi Government is able to maintain law and order.

With the deadline for the US withdrawal of its troops fast approaching, it will be interesting to see in two years time if the US is going to be condemned for leaving Iraq too early!

[SEE]

I never mentioned the USA nor did I advocate the use of terrorism in my post. I have poltical views but I don't believe forums are for discussing complex political issues. However, what I will say is that 'terrorist' acts are, and will continue to be carried out, in the absence of a 'conventional' military option or a recognised political platform.

We are told to be worried of a new and equally subversive 'terrorist' threat - 'Cyber Terrorism'! Iran, China, the USA, WIKI Leaks, etc, either engaging in or being victims.

So, who are these terrorists? Who are they attacking and why?
Simple questions but answering them is riddled with complexities brought about by the lies, popular misconceptions and political agendas of all involved.

You have to address the 'causes' that radicalise people and not confuse poltical agenda's with the basic instincts of self determination and its this idea that you cannot change or destroy. Rightly or wrongly, the current state of affairs in Palestine, the wests involvement in the Middle East has radicalised many Muslims - that is the point I am making and most accept that point of view.

Poltical agenda's are fluid and complex- the Taliban along with the Mujahadeen were given arms and miltary support when Russia invaded Afghanistan, Saddam HUssein was supported as 'our son of a bitch' when he engaged in war against Iran..........there are two edges to every sword and which edge you consider the most threatening depends on........?

[moilami]

Originally Posted by SEE

We are told of a new and equally subversive terrorist threat - 'Cyber Terrorism'! Iran, China, the USA, WIKI Leaks, etc either engaging in or attacked.

Is Wikileaks now considered to be a "terrorist organization"

This is going to be absurd par excellence, and I can say I have already laughed very big time as I watched some news about the panic on different governments regarding Wikileaks. They did not even know what exactly was leaked - yet panicked totally. 'nuff said.

Anyway for me it is all the same what we discuss here. I could not care less because nothing will change for good as a result.

[moilami]

Alright, as my last words I say "the coalition" would had got better results in Iraq by educating 1000 Iraquese women in Universities in USA, Sweden, and Finland in feminist studies and after that sending them back to Iraq

And as funny and ridiculous as that may sound, there is no reasonable doubts about it being by far much bigger win for the world than this "war against terrorism" xxxx.

(Note I totally deny being a feminist.)


Edit: Some may not get the strategy so I explain. The 1000 iraquese feminists would start a change where at first they would get free marriages for women. After that men would have to begin to please women in islamic countries, which would lead men begin to reinterpret the Koran in a way women want. The rest would be history.

Edit: Some may argue it is against Geneve rules of "fair play" and comparable to terrorism to send 1000 feminists to Iraq, but oh well, don't blame me, I am just specialized in creative solutions and someone asked for better solutions