10 New Unpublished Photos of Hiroshima

That is a truly scary thought. Now, you may have said that with the notion that a particular nation has the best interest of humanity in mind, but even then what that nation feels is in the best interest of humanity may not be congruent with the feelings of vast populations.

Use your same logic and put yourself in the place of a nation that would be attacked by weapons of mass destruction.

 

I am happy for you that you are now a "truther"...whatever the hell that term means.

As far as answering your question, you have already done that for yourself...a few times.

I don't answer it, because I believe it is faulty in it's premise. In your question, you state; "Their non-existent (by this point) morality?" I don't beleive what I stated earlier about war constitutes immorality, because I don't believe their is morality in war. If there was morality, there wouldn't be a war in the first place.

Jim

 

So by that logic you must think the war in Iraq is Immoral?

 

You are absolutely right. It is a scary thought.

I don't pretend to believe that any nation, including our nation, has the best interest of humanity in mind. We would like to believe we do to justify our actions, however, every nation's #1 concern is for itself, not humanity. Anyone who says differently is either lying, uninformed or living in a dream world. Therefore, what that nation (whatever nation it is) feels is in the best interest of humanity will not be congruent with the feelings of vast populations. It will be in the best interest of that nation. This is so painfully eveident as we see nations "interact" today "in the best interest of humanity". Tell me, what nations can agree on what is in the best interest of humanity? Hardly any, so it must be in their individual nation's interest, but they want to believe it is in humanity's interest.

As a contemporary nation, we have never had the war come to our shores. I bet if it did, the outlook of most people would change dramatically on how we should handle the opposing country. As Amaricans, we "experience" war in a sterile environment...it does not hit home, so people sit back and talk about the "morality" that must be upheld in war. Let it come to our shores and you'll see how "moral" people really are.

Jim

 

By "immoral" do you mean wrong? By "moral" would you mean "right"?

Whether a war is a "moral" war or an "immoral" war is not what I am talking about.

What I am saying is once you are in a war, there is no morality. You do what you have to do, with any means, as swiftly as possible to bring it to an end with the least amount of loss to your people and the least amount of detriment to your nation. If that means taking extreme measures, then that is what you do.

Jim

 

Oh, so Jim, you're a 9/11 truther?

You just said "every nation's #1 concern is for itself, not humanity", then by extension, every human's #1 concern is for themselves, not humanity. By your own logic, Bush's #1 concern is himself, not Americans.

I am shocked that someone who doesn't believe in morality thinks it impossible that politicians (Hitler, Stalin, Bush, etc.) would kill their own civilians to start a war.

 

Cyrus,

I wouldn't call myself a 9/11 truther, but I have read enough on both sides of the argument to conclude that 9/11 is what it appeared to be and not an "inside job" as you would like us to believe. I am, however, always open to new information. BTW...you are in the ball park about the burning temperarture of jet fuel, but you don't take other factors into account. I have yet to read one credible engineer or scientist say that the burning jet fuel was the sole factor for bringing the WTC down.

Nation's concern is for itself: yes
Individuals' concerns are for themselves: yes
Bush's concern is himself: yes

I never said I don't believe in morality, but I will say that we tend to give it lip service and shape what is "morality" to our needs and wants. I said there is no morality in war.

And, I never said that I thought it was impossible for politicians to kill their own.

If I am incorrect, please quote where I said these things. Sometimes in debating we can contradict ourselves.

Cyrus, I think you are "shocked" that everyone doesn't buy into your arguments and think like you.

Jim

 

I disagree with that. I would never ask any man or women serving in war to forget morality. I would not order any troop to "do what have to do". If you lose all morality while fighting a war, then what are you really fighting for?

The enemy in Iraq takes "exteme measures" such as suicide bombings, which kills more civilians than it does combatants. Does that mean we should take those measures? Of course not. To take even more extreme measures such as "weapons of mass destruction" which would surely kill many more civilians than a suicide bomber could ever hope to kill, would make us even worse than the enemy we are trying to fight.

 

Then what are you even in this thread for? To just say to impart your "wisdom" that there is "no morality in war"? Okay, thanks for your opinion. You can go now.

So what are these other factors then? the airplane hitting it?

As Frank A. DeMartini, the WTC Construction and Project Manager, said years BEFORE the attacks, the "WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse" and said they would be like "pencils hitting mesh netting" it "does nothing to the netting".

I don't know about your sources but I think the WTC construction manager *might* be an expert on the WTC's structural integrity in the event of an airplane crash.

But here's a better one for you, why did the Pentagon hide the footage of the Pentagon crash? It took them 5 years just to release ONE camera, and they released only FIVE FRAMES. There are literally thousands of frames being not released.

Why? What's your reasoning? Maybe the terrorists used a "classified" commercial jetliner that can't be shown on TV? hahaha.


And since you're so researched on it, did you listen to the firefighter tapes? if you listen to anything about 9/11 listen to them: Mp3

The firefighters clearly say the fires are only an isolated pocket and that "TWO LINES" (hose) should knock it down. THAT'S when the building collapses. When the fire is almost completely extinguished.

 

I actually agree with that, but I am relating it more on a personal level. If someone was trying to kill my family or loved ones, I would fight them without reservation.

 

Would you kill their loved ones? His wife and kids who never attacked you? That's what this whole thread is about.

None of us disagree with fighting back. We disagree with killing innocent women and children, that's all. Whereas Jim thinks it's swell if it gets them to surrender quicker.

 

I would too and I think many people would as well. However, I would stop short of using a weapon of mass destruction that would kill innocent civilians.

 

You are fighting to win. Don't fool yourself into thinking you are fighting for "morality". Like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is morality. Travel the world and ask people from differing nations about their morals and morality. You'll get many different answers. Does that make them wrong and us right?

Those weapons would end the war more swiftly with less of our troops dying and spending billions less that we could spend on our own people...education, medical needs, poverty, social improvements, etc. Now, which is more immoral? Isn't it immoral that so many people in our country are in poverty, tens of thousands of our children are going to bed hungry each night, many senior citizens live in desperation...are not getting proper nutrition and medical care, that our education system is in such disarray and our next generation will find it more difficult to compete in the intellectual realm, that our crime rate and prison rate continues to rise with insufficient programs in place to turn the tide. All this takes money. Money we are pissing away putzing around over there. Tell me which is "more" immoral?


Jim

 

If it would prevent them from killing me and my loved ones, yes.

 

You agree to kill women and kids in war ?

 

Start with these:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

and, really read them.

Jim

 

You realize we could of "not" gone over there, and we would of saved the trillions.

But Bush would prefer to spend trillions on training up a new Muslim army to kill us. Which BTW, this Iraqi army WILL definitely side with the arabs during the next Arab-Israeli war.

I think even you agree with that. And if you do agree that the Iraqi Arabs will side with Arabs in the next Arab-Israeli war, then you agree that Bush is a traitor who is arming up our future enemies?

 

You are absolutely right! We could have not gone over there, and I would have preferred that. However, once we did go over, we should have made short work of it.

As far as funding the Iraqi Army, I am in disagreement. The people over there will never side with us...on anything. We are fools if we think we can change their minds. They will, though, gladly take our money.

I have to get some sleep. I'll talk more with you tomorrow...or should I say later...

Jim

 

Nice post, I do think war money would be better spent at home and that we should think about the cost of war more than we did before we get into this one.

However, any nation that treats the entire populace of an "enemy" nation as combatants and are willing to kill them because it is more "economical" is not a nation I would want anything to do with.

I surely do not want the US to be that nation. I have fought for the US in war and regardless of the mistakes we have made in the past I would like to believe that I fought for a nation that believes every human life has value.

 

Cya tomorrow then. Short work of whom though. The sunnis in power with Saddam? Then you give power to the shiites who back Iran. (current situation)