Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It is not clear to me that declaring a war makes the resultant murders more moral.

I didn't say it was more moral. I said it was different. Pearl Harbor, an attack by a country which had been at peace just prior to the attack, was very much a mugging. America was jumped by the Japanese and a ferocious response is a perfectly predictable result.

Hirsohima was not a mugging. Japan had every reason to expect very serious consequences would result from continuing the war. The US explicity warned that horrible things would happen to the Japanese if they continued the war. Horrible things had already occurred.

The US chose to employ their WMDs on civilian targets instead of military ones because they wished to maximize the pyschological impact (i.e. they wished to terrorize the Japanese into despair, hoping that they would then surrender). Thus, the atomic bombs were terrorist acts employing WMDs during a time of war.

To me, dropping a bomb from an aircraft during a declared war is inherently no more or less moral than parking a car bomb during an insurgency.

Same to me.

Got this gem from my alma mater (where I got my Masters in Public Policy). Someone seems to believe we are in Crisis mode.

Dean David T. Ellwood invites you to attend the conference, titled "The Looming Crises: Can We Act in Time?" on May 4th and 5th at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. This two-day event, featuring a keynote address by the 42nd President of the United States William Jefferson Clinton, will examine how leaders and nations can act in time to solve the world's biggest problems. In addition to President Clinton, the Kennedy School has assembled a distinguished group of faculty members and practitioners for an in depth exploration of the most critical public policy issues facing us today.

For more information and to register, click here.

Space is limited.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/conferenc...ses/index.html

The cost is $250, which actually isn't as much as I expected, since on that Saturday, I'll be paying about $60-$70 for my piddly Toastmasters conference. If I were in the Boston Area, I'd consider going.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That is not correct. OBL declared war on the US in 1998 and proceeded to launch a series of attacks against the US, 911 being the fourth of these. His al Qaeda organization was not provoking* a war with the US--it was already at war with the US.

In his declaration of war, OBL claimed that the US started the conflict by its persecution of civilians in Iraq who had done nothing to harm or threaten the US. He also asserted that the US had commited a crime against (his fundamentalist understanding of) Islamic law by placing an infidel army in Saudi Arabia. For OBL, the presence of US troops in SA is like trying to force acceptance of homosexuality on militantly religious people who see it as an abomination.

Just because the American government did not take OBL's ability to wage war seriously doesn't mean that there was no war. Had the US ignored Pearl Harbor and not declared war, does that Japan would not have been at war with America?

*OBL was trying to provoke a response from the US. He wanted the US to take his war declaration seriously. He didn't get exactly what he wanted, the US still doesn't take him seriously, but it did respond.

You might have missed my response to BobB above.

Whether it was 9/11 or his earlier fatwa, it was OBL who declared war on the US. And whether or not his reasoning provides any justifications (they don't), he initiated open conflict.

Truman's Hiroshima and Nagasaki actions did not initiate open conflict; rather they aborted further massive WW2-scale carnage in the Pacific and possible in Europe. That difference is where any moral comparisons between OBL and Truman completely falls apart.

It is also the foundation for why history's final assessment of Bush2's actions in Iraq will find him morally wanting - - while 'sold' as a means to end the WoT or to prevent Saddam from using WMDs, Bush2's Iraq action has instead greatly catalyzed open conflict of the nastiest kind. That doesn't excuse OBL -- perhaps Bush gets to spend eternity farting on OBL's face but they both belong in Hell. In comparison to either, Truman is a saint. Imagine the "Truman Doctrine" if Bush2 had been the 'decider' -- do you think any of us would be alive today?

Note - from your response to BobB, it appears we are in general agreement and just playing with some nuances.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Got this gem from my alma mater (where I got my Masters in Public Policy). Someone seems to believe we are in Crisis mode.


http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/conferenc...ses/index.html

The cost is $250, which actually isn't as much as I expected, since on that Saturday, I'll be paying about $60-$70 for my piddly Toastmasters conference. If I were in the Boston Area, I'd consider going.

Wow, this is interesting. I'm going to get my agency to pay my way!

I once was invited to a party where you got to shake the ex-Prez's hand -- it would only cost you 5 grand (I didn't go). This is a bargin!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Got this gem from my alma mater (where I got my Masters in Public Policy). Someone seems to believe we are in Crisis mode.
...
The cost is $250, which actually isn't as much as I expected, since on that Saturday, I'll be paying about $60-$70 for my piddly Toastmasters conference. If I were in the Boston Area, I'd consider going.

I would want more than $ 250.00 to listen to WJC. I think something on the order of $ 1,100.00/hour would be required.

Others:

• Speaker Pelosi-- $ 550.00/hr.
• Newt Gingrich-- $ 72.50/word
• The S.W.O.T.E.-- $ 4.500.00/sigh; 2x that for each rolled eyes
• Mr. Al Gore-- a decent lunch and a bottle of cognac (1.5 liter)
• Mr. Obama-- $ 230.00 for each & every inspiration
• GWB-- so that I could entertain myself at North Cenrtral Eurasian roulette: a Colt 1911 and a single .45 caliber cartridge
• Mr. Edwards-- a ditch to die in

HTH

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Actually, you don't prefer "simple and straightforward" as you claim. This is a not-so-artful dodge and ad hominem attack that (spelling and punctuation errors aside) could have easily been written by Zilch.

It's a rambling, illogical mess, coated with outright lies and misrepresentations.

I have stopped discussing anything with Mr. Killed-In-Action, since it's alway frustrating and unsatifying. Apparently, he either has a very pronounced case of internal cognitive dissonance, or he just enjoys being snarky.

Originally Posted by salsabob

One take, often cited, is that Truman dropped the big ones to shock the Japanese ancient mindset and avoid the devastating 'island-hopping' (e.g. out of 22,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the Iwo Jima battle, 20,000 were killed, and only 216 taken prisoner) being played-out by hundreds of thousands of our people amongst the millions of Japanese civilians in their islands homeland --- untold carnage. Another take is that he dropped them to show the Soviets our resolve at a time when they could have rolled their tanks through to Normandy further continuing the massive global carnage that was otherwise coming to an end.

This is what I buy. Truman's actions were taken to save lives in the larger context and to end a war.

X-Day, the invasion of Kyushu, was planned for November 1st, 1945. Y-Day, the invasion of the Kanto region of Honshu, was planned for March 1st 1946. This was serious business. And given our experiences at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, one could expect a mass invasion of the home islands to have elicited a horrendous result.

Military estimates at the time predicted more US casualties than all of our casualties for all wars, including WWII to that point, combined. Significantly more, IIRC. And our estimates of Japanese dead (mostly civilian) was about 4 million, I think. I actually think that was way too conservative an estimate considering the famine we would have engendered blockading the home islands and destroying their farms and railroads. The human misery would have been akin to the Russian suffering at the hands of the Nazis. And Truman would have had no choice in the matter but to pursue total war. It almost certainly would have turned out this way.

And in light of this, Truman would have been CRUCIFIED if it came out that he let this all happen but had the A-Bomb at his disposal to stop it before it happened.

So not only were hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Japanese saved by Truman's actions regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but politically it was absolutely unavoidable, unless Truman was willing to become the biggest monster in American history. Unlike Herbert H., Harry would have been killed after office.

Al Qaeda's actions on 9/11/01 however, were executed in order to enlarge a conflict and for purposes of global domination. And if you think the latter isn't true, I strongly suggest you think again. The Pan-Islamic Caliphate is NOT going to happen while the muslim population is tantilized by Western media in the global village, and bin Laden knows this. The only answer is to convert, or destroy, the West. And why shouldn't he think he can't? He actually thinks he brought down the Soviet Empire.

Originally Posted by salsabob

However, none of this is related to nor excuses KIA's rather twisted up logic. ;-(

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is true. Justin is more of a libertarian than you or I, KIA.

I don't know exactly what KIA is, but it ain't libertarian. He is on record, vehemently, for being all for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program and other authoritarian activities. We have nothing to worry about if we aren't doing anything wrong, he says. And we are at war so the President can take what measures he sees fit. If he goes too far the word-of-mouth and the media will alert us. E gads!

Keep it simple, he says. Indeed. More like keep it simpleton.

Originally Posted by salsabob

Whether it was 9/11 or his earlier fatwa, it was OBL who declared war on the US.

That’s what I said.

And whether or not his reasoning provides any justifications (they don't), he initiated open conflict.

Yes he did, just as the US has initiated conflict numerous times in Latin America and recently in the current round of the Iraq war.

Truman's Hiroshima and Nagasaki actions did not initiate open conflict;

That's true.

rather they aborted further massive WW2-scale carnage in the Pacific and possible in Europe. That difference is where any moral comparisons between OBL and Truman completely falls apart.

Would the Hiroshima bombs be less moral if the US government had not agreed after the bombing to keep the emperor on his throne to obtain a surrender and the war went on? If so, wouldn't it be even more moral for the Americans to have agreed to keep the emperor on his throne before the bombing to obtain a surrender and so to not drop the bombs?

And if the 911 attacks been successful* they would have averted massive further carnage in Iraq. Would this make 911 more moral?

*Success in this case meaning that the US stopped the Iraqi embargo and removed the troops from Saudi Arabia. Had the US done that there would be no second phase of the Iraq war and half a million people who are now dead would not be.

As I see it, the nuclear attack on Hiroshima was an act of terrorism, but the nukes could have been used in a way that would not be terrorism. I'll give an example wrt to Germany because I am more familiar with the war in Germany.

Suppose the bomb had been finished in Nov 1944 instead of July 1945. It could then be used against the Nazis in Dec 1944. If the Americans proceeded as they did against the Japanese nine months later, they would have used the bomb against Dresden, in an effort to exert a terroristic psychological effect. Alternatively, the bomb could have been targeted on the Reich chancellery, in which case Hitler and his chief aides would have been killed and the power of the new weapon revealed to Hitler's successor. It is possible that with Hitler dead the Germans would have surrendered when faced with the fact that their enemies had the power to devastate entire cities with a single bomb. In this case the target would be a military one--Hitler himself. In both attacks innocent civilians would die, but I see an attack on Berlin as an act of war, while an attack on Dresden is an act of terror.

Wrt to 911, I see the attack on the WTC as an act of terrorism like Hiroshima, but the attack on the Pentagon as an act of war like my hypothetical nuke attack on Berlin.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

This is what I buy. Truman's actions were taken to save lives in the larger context and to end a war.

I agree.

While many Presidential scholars now rate Truman as being in the top 10, I think he is still much under appreciated in both the challenges he faced, how he decided to deal with them, AND how things could have gone so much more horrible wrong. It is really incredible to have his name even mentioned in the same breath as OBL or even Bush2.

-- just the typical fate of one tough-ass Nomad (Truman 1884 - Lost), I guess?

I've seen his type in some of our mid-level military GenX in Iraq. Thank God they come along when they do.

Originally Posted by salsabob

Note - from your response to BobB, it appears we are in general agreement and just playing with some nuances.

I think a lot of us are together plus or minus a few nuances, but the discussion might be improved if the Big Question is subdivided into a few smaller ones. Alas, I suspect the answers to the questions might depend on cultural context, whether one's culture has been more in the mugger or muggee position of late.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Would the Hiroshima bombs be less moral if the US government had not agreed after the bombing to keep the emperor on his throne to obtain a surrender and the war went on? If so, wouldn't it be even more moral for the Americans to have agreed to keep the emperor on his throne before the bombing to obtain a surrender and so to not drop the bombs?

All evidence now, but particularly back then, points to the impossibility of us "allowing" the emperor his throne prior to the bombing. This is akin to our telling the Muslim world that we will allow OBL to be their supreme leader if he agrees to be our lap dog.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And if the 911 attacks been successful* they would have averted massive further carnage in Iraq. Would this make 911 more moral?

*Success in this case meaning that the US stopped the Iraqi embargo and removed the troops from Saudi Arabia. Had the US done that there would be no second phase of the Iraq war and half a million people who are now dead would not be.

Answer is "NO!" OBL is immoral but not real stupid. His tactical objective was to draw the Americans into a fight with the Muslim world where he could demonstrate our weakness (aka the Soviets) and defeat us. He had to initiate open warfare and its carnage first to get to those strategic goals (actually I don't think he gave a rat's ass about the Iraqis). As Zar states above, his actions were motivated to initiate open conflict, first and foremost. IMHO, initiating open conflict is the key determinant in judging immoral behavior at this scale of carnage (note - it is why Bush/Cheny's pre-emptive war doctrine is immoral, as well as revealing their basic fearful personalities)

Originally Posted by Mikebert

As I see it, the nuclear attack on Hiroshima was an act of terrorism, but the nukes could have been used in a way that would not be terrorism. I'll give an example wrt to Germany because I am more familiar with the war in Germany.

Suppose the bomb had been finished in Nov 1944 instead of July 1945. It could then be used against the Nazis in Dec 1944. If the Americans proceeded as they did against the Japanese nine months later, they would have used the bomb against Dresden, in an effort to exert a terroristic psychological effect. Alternatively, the bomb could have been targeted on the Reich chancellery, in which case Hitler and his chief aides would have been killed and the power of the new weapon revealed to Hitler's successor. It is possible that with Hitler dead the Germans would have surrendered when faced with the fact that their enemies had the power to devastate entire cities with a single bomb. In this case the target would be a military one--Hitler himself. In both attacks innocent civilians would die, but I see an attack on Berlin as an act of war, while an attack on Dresden is an act of terror.

Wrt to 911, I see the attack on the WTC as an act of terrorism like Hiroshima, but the attack on the Pentagon as an act of war like my hypothetical nuke attack on Berlin.

Dresden and certain other German cities were considered key military targets to hamper German troop movement from the west to reinforce their collapsing eastern front with the Russians (it was Boris, not Kilroy, that won the ground war) -

The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) had come to the conclusion that the Germans could reinforce their eastern front with up to 42 divisions (half a million men) from other fronts and that, if the Soviet advance could be helped by hindering that movement, it could shorten the war. They thought that the Germans could complete the reinforcement by March 1945. The JIC's analysis was backed up by Ultra Enigma-code intercepts, which confirmed that the Germans had such plans

But the fact that Dresden as well as the two Japanese cities had military objectives is not my major point. Rather, these WW2 actions were taken within the context of existing total war and the strategic moral objective of aborting further and grander open conflict ASAP.

OBL's actions were done to do the immoral opposite.

Originally Posted by salsabob

All evidence now, but particularly back then, points to the impossibility of us "allowing" the emperor his throne prior to the bombing. This is akin to our telling the Muslim world that we will allow OBL to be their supreme leader if he agrees to be our lap dog.

You didn't address my point. You claimed that the Japanese surrender after the bombs (which prevented further carnage) helped make the bombs moral. I asked if the Japanese had decided not to surrender would the bombs then be less moral? You seem to be saying that the morality of our attack was dependent on how the Japanese responded.

Answer is "NO!" OBL is immoral but not real stupid. His tactical objective was to draw the Americans into a fight with the Muslim world where he could demonstrate our weakness (aka the Soviets) and defeat us. He had to initiate open warfare and its carnage first to get to those strategic goals (actually I don't think he gave a rat's ass about the Iraqis).

This also seems irrelevant. Here I am asking the same question. Does the morality of 911 depend on what WE did afterward.

It seems to me that the morality of either of these actions should not depend on what the victim did afterward.

Dresden and certain other German cities were considered key military targets to hamper German troop movement from the west to reinforce their collapsing eastern front with the Russians

By some. But the actual firebombing of Dresden was controversial at the time, as was the Hiroshima bomb. I doubt that nuking the Reich chancellery would be considered controversial or immoral. This was my point.

As Zar states above, OBL's actions were motivated to initiate open conflict, first and foremost. IMHO, initiating open conflict is the key determinant in judging immoral behavior at this scale of carnage

OBL's actions were done to do the immoral opposite (of preventing further carnage).

You don't really know this. It is true that OBL expected the US to respond militarily and that he relished such an outcome. But that doesn't mean that if the US surprised him and abruptly left the Middle East, he would not have been pleased as well.

For example, suppose after 911 we decided to take our ball and go home telling the Mideast in effect to go fuck itself. What do you think Osama's reaction would be? I would think he initially would be jubilant as he had "defeated" the US with a single blow. He might find himself welcome back home again. If the US were absent from the ME this would facilitate OBL's long term plan better than initiating overt war.

If OBL's objectives could be achieved by the US either counterattacking or leaving the ME, then you would have the morality of the action dependent on what we do. If we respond aggressively, then there would be carnage (911 immoral), if we left instead then there would not be carnage (911 less immoral).

I have a real problem with your assigning the moral value of an aggressor's actions based on what the victim does.

Is the behavior of the head of the World Bank 3T or 4T?

Should a gentleman/lady use the practice of rent seeking when keeping a mistress/gigolo? Or, would it be more romantic to pay for a liason from one's own purse?

Is a publicly funded lover 3T or 4T behavior? The crudeness would argue for 3T but the financial burden sharing would point to 4T? Would a different T result if the person was a more Commercial Relation such as a prostitute or rentboy just providing a service?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You didn't address my point. You claimed that the Japanese surrender after the bombs (which prevented further carnage) helped make the bombs moral. I asked if the Japanese had decided not to surrender would the bombs then be less moral? You seem to be saying that the morality of our attack was dependent on how the Japanese responded.


This also seems irrelevant. Here I am asking the same question. Does the morality of 911 depend on what WE did afterward.

It seems to me that the morality of either of these actions should not depend on what the victim did afterward.


By some. But the actual firebombing of Dresden was controversial at the time, as was the Hiroshima bomb. I doubt that nuking the Reich chancellery would be considered controversial or immoral. This was my point.


You don't really know this. It is true that OBL expected the US to respond militarily and that he relished such an outcome. But that doesn't mean that if the US surprised him and abruptly left the Middle East, he would not have been pleased as well.

For example, suppose after 911 we decided to take our ball and go home telling the Mideast in effect to go fuck itself. What do you think Osama's reaction would be? I would think he initially would be jubilant as he had "defeated" the US with a single blow. He might find himself welcome back home again. If the US were absent from the ME this would facilitate OBL's long term plan better than initiating overt war.

If OBL's objectives could be achieved by the US either counterattacking or leaving the ME, then you would have the morality of the action dependent on what we do. If we respond aggressively, then there would be carnage (911 immoral), if we left instead then there would not be carnage (911 less immoral).

I have a real problem with your assigning the moral value of an aggressor's actions based on what the victim does.

No, the morality is not dependent on actual outcome. The morality of the action is dependent on the actor's intended outcome. Truman's moral intent was to abort further and grander carnage; OBL immoral intent was to do the opposite.

"The intention makes the crime."
— Aristotle, Greek philosopher (384-322 B.C.)

One might argue that one's competency in forecasting outcomes becomes a factor that may undermine a judgment of an action's morality. The actor takes the risk of he and his actions being judged either immoral, incompetent, or both. He must weigh those risks against the potential benefits of his actions he intends -- again, a moral as well as competency question.

History will make its judgment of the actor's relative mix of morality and competence in his choices, and history will use both elements to determine the "good" of the actor and his actions. Regardless of the final mix, history IMHO, will use these two elements to conclude Bush2's and OBL's "good" as something much more that just wanting. On the other hand, IMHO, history's use of these two elements can only conclude Truman's A-bomb actions had substantial "good." Further, when coupled with most (but not all) other Truman actions, IMHO history's judgment of Truman's "good" will conclude to be something more than just "amongst the top 10 Presidents."

Originally Posted by salsabob

No, the morality is not dependent on actual outcome. The morality of the action is dependent on the actor's intended outcome. Truman's moral intent was to abort further and grander carnage; OBL immoral intent was to do the opposite.

"The intention makes the crime."
— Aristotle, Greek philosopher (384-322 B.C.)

One might argue that one's competency in forecasting outcomes becomes a factor that may undermine a judgment of an action's morality. The actor takes the risk of he and his actions being judged either immoral, incompetent, or both. He must weigh those risks against the potential benefits of his actions he intends -- again, a moral as well as competency question.

I can sympathize. If I am allowed to restate your proposition... Might one measure competence by whether the actual outcome of an action is similar to the intended outcome? Thus, one might be judged both against what one intended to do and what one actually achieved?

Alas, in addition to quoting Aristotle, one might inquire as to the paving material on the road to hell.

Originally Posted by salsabob

No, the morality is not dependent on actual outcome. The morality of the action is dependent on the actor's intended outcome. Truman's moral intent was to abort further and grander carnage; OBL immoral intent was to do the opposite.

You're actually incorrect about ObL's motives. He was pretty clear that in stepping up to the next level of attacking, he was trying to bring the attention of the American people to the harm they were doing against his people -- to get them to stop the great wrongs that were being committed in their name.

Of course, if you're not going to judge one of the two by their own words, then you have to allow the argument that Truman's dropping of the two nuclear bombs was a cynical ploy to get a leg up on the up-and-coming US rivals in the USSR. That many tens of thousands of children were murdered because he wanted to show off his big stick to a third party. I mean, it is fairly well documented that the Japanese had been trying to surrender for several weeks preceding Fat Man.

And then we get back to the point. There's little cause to pretend the two actions were not morally equivalent. Murder is murder, no matter what excuses the killer gives.

Of relevance -

Neocon Godmother Considered Iraq War a Mistake

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/20...n_godmothe.php

"Iraq presented a very different set of circumstances from Afghanistan, however. These are things we ought to have known and taken into account when weighing our decision to invade in 2003.

Iraq lacked practically all the requirements for a democratic government: rule of law, an elite with a shared commitment to democratic procedures, a sense of citizenship, and habits of trust and cooperation. The administration's failure involved several issues, but the core concern is that they did not seem to have methodically completed the due diligence required for reasoned policy-making because they failed to address the aftermath of the invasion. This, of course, is reflected by the violence, sectarian unrest, ethnic vengeance and bloodshed we see in Iraq today." Jeanne Kirkpatrick

At first, it appears it’s a damning judgment of competence. However, what is the genesis of the incompetence? Lack of due diligence.

"Due diligence" is in reference to an action; in this case, an action not adequately taken. Was the action not taken due to lack of capabilities or due to lack of motivation? The former is a measure of competency; the latter lays “the mistake” at the feet of immorality.

Has the "godmother of the neocons" found them incompetent or immoral?

I think the key here is her use of "methodically." Given the enormity of the action to be taken (i.e. preemptive invasion), did the methodology behind their decisionmaking match --if not in actuality at least in attempt? The answer to that may be why they fought so hard and nasty against Joe Wilson's disclosures; his NYT piece will certainly be key to the historians.

Again, IMHO, whatever the ‘mix’ of incompetence or immorality: in regard to Plato’s “good,” history will tell them, “You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.”

Take these same measures and apply them to Truman's decision. You get a much different result.

Originally Posted by salsabob

No, the morality is not dependent on actual outcome. The morality of the action is dependent on the actor's intended outcome. Truman's moral intent was to abort further and grander carnage; OBL immoral intent was to do the opposite.

Intent is hard to gauge. How do you know what Truman's intent was? Once the bombs were dropped and the Japanese surrendered unconditionally, one can claim this was the intent of the bombing.

But suppose Japan wasn't willing to surrender unconditionally, even after the bombs were dropped? Suppose the war went on, and the Americans managed to secure peace by negotiating terms. In this case the decision to negotiate terms would have responsible for preventing carnage, not the bomb. A different intent for the bombing would be assigned.

In actuality neither of these happened. The Japanese surrendered shortly after the bombing, but the surrender was not unconditional, surrender was conditional on the emperor staying on his throne. Since no effort at negotiation was made before the bombs were dropped, nobody knows if the Japanese would have surrendered before the bombings if offered this single condition.

Other motives for dropping the bomb (i.e. to send a message to the USSR) may have applied. So it is not certain what the intent really was.

And then there is the choice of target. Why not target the center of government? Why not destroy an entire army in the field to demonstrate the futility of opposing such immensely powerful weapons. Why instead chose a city of no great military significance, which has not been significantly damaged and which was ringed by hills that would magnify the blast? How does the target selection comport with an intent to minimize carnage? It seems to be the target was selected to maximize carnage (perhaps to impress the Soviets?).

As for OBL, after the 911 attack the US responded with two wars. And OBL said that this is what he intended. But suppose the US had not responded by waging two wars, but instead withdrew from the Mideast. I suspect that OBL would then say that this was his intent.

When we (after the fact) assign intent to Truman or OBL, we are informed by what actually happened. Since the Japanese surrendered, Truman claims this was his intent. Since the US counterattacked after 911, OBL claims this was his intent.

The assignation of intent still seems to depend on what the victim does.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You're actually incorrect about ObL's motives. He was pretty clear that in stepping up to the next level of attacking, he was trying to bring the attention of the American people to the harm they were doing against his people -- to get them to stop the great wrongs that were being committed in their name.

I think most who study these things for a living have concluded that OBL's primary tactical objective was the removal of US forces from the Arabian Peninsula and his primary strategic objective was the replacement of the House of Saud with a caliph that would not only adhere to a form of Sharia Law more compatible with that of the Taliban but that would also attempt to project that onto the rest of the Muslim (if not eventually, the entire) world.

However, lets assume that you have some insight on OBL's motivations that others do not. What you are basically saying is that his ability to discern the consequences of his actions were grossly incompetent -- rather than merely getting as much airtime as Anna Nicole, he in fact unleashed US forces that led to the downfall of the only nation-state practicing the type of Sharia Law that comes closest to what he wants to impose in other lands. You may be right about this because at the time of Tora Bora, OBL was greatly repudiated in Jihad world for this exact consequence of his "far enemy" strategy (there are recorded intercepted radio transmissions of him apologizing exactly for this result). His repudiation was such that it was considered (again, by those who make a living at doing such things) as only a matter of time before some northern Pak tribe dropped the dime on him for the reward money. He had become a non-factor.

That is, until along came Bush's foray into Iraq. In OBL's own words "a Godsend" that has revived him and his movement. Funny (not in a 'ha-ha way') how his Godsend is the massive carnage that has now been unleashed. It might make one conclude that his (IMHO) lack of "good" is in fact not about his incompetence in predicting outcomes, but in his immoral intent to initiate open conflict and further carnage. With Iraq, he got exactly what he wanted.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course, if you're not going to judge one of the two by their own words,

I don't know for sure but these "own words" of OBL's -

"The Muslims have realized they are the main targets of the aggression of the coalition of Jews and the Crusaders [bin Laden's term for the West]. The latest of these assaults is the greatest disaster since the death of Prophet Muhammad — that is the occupation of the country of two sacred mosques—the home of Islam [Saudi Arabia]. If Allah wills and I live, God willing I will expel the Jews and the Christians from Arabia. Our Muslim brothers throughout the world, your brothers in the country of two sacred places and in Palestine request your support. They are asking you to participate with them against their enemies, who are also your enemies—the Israelis and Americans—by causing them as much harm as can be possibly achieved." - OBL

sure seems more like an appeal to all Muslims to inflict as much carnage on the West as possible rather than an appeal to Americans asking for air time equal to that of American Idol.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

then you have to allow the argument that Truman's dropping of the two nuclear bombs was a cynical ploy to get a leg up on the up-and-coming US rivals in the USSR. That many tens of thousands of children were murdered because he wanted to show off his big stick to a third party. I mean, it is fairly well documented that the Japanese had been trying to surrender for several weeks preceding Fat Man.

I suggest that this is as good as any place to start to get a better sense of the Japanese collective mindset regarding surrender -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

Even today, it is difficult to ascertain what was happening or could of happened. Imagine, at the time, coming to the end of total war, carnage never seen and hopefully never to be seen again, dealing with obviously the most un-trusted enemy and an "ally" involving itself that might turn out to be a much bigger threat....seems kinda tough to me. But, Justin, with your 2007 superior understanding, wisdom, and morals, compared to that of Truman, I guess you have all the certitude. You are just astonishing. A big hur-ray for you!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And then we get back to the point. There's little cause to pretend the two actions were not morally equivalent. Murder is murder, no matter what excuses the killer gives.

You know, Justin, I've seen my share of combat; more than I'd ever care to discuss. Maybe you have to. Still, I don't think I can imagine the weight on a man having the choices that Truman had. But I don't have that superiority thingee going for me that you seem so lucky to own.

But in closing, I have to say that any one who sees Truman's choices in the same "morally equivalent" light as those as OBL is either a sociopath or just playing at being a shithead. Which is it? And, when did you stop beating your wife? ;-).

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I don't know exactly what KIA is, but it ain't libertarian. He is on record, vehemently, for being all for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program and other authoritarian activities. We have nothing to worry about if we aren't doing anything wrong, he says. And we are at war so the President can take what measures he sees fit. If he goes too far the word-of-mouth and the media will alert us. E gads!

Keep it simple, he says. Indeed. More like keep it simpleton.

I'm a small (L) libertarian, small (R) republican. I don't recognize Justin's Libertarian laws as being realistic or absolute. Despite what you think, the majority of libertarians have minds of their own, live amongst the general population and don't adhere themselves exclusively to the Libertarian's ideals. For the most part, Libertarians like Justin appear to adhere to their principles or ideals without taking into account external events, certain people who exist or situations that call for personal civic participation or actions.

Dude, we obviously have a disagreement on whether or not we are still at war with radical factions of Islam. And whether or not factions of radical Islam reside within America. Your big issue was over-site, you got your wish in the last election, you now have over site, so quit your whimpering. One other note, small (L's) who care about people or acknowledge threat to their personal world can or may become very authoritarian as well.

Originally Posted by salsabob

No, the morality is not dependent on actual outcome.

As a rule consequentialist, I must disagree. it is the results of the actions as expressed in rules, laws, regulations, customs, and protocols that determine the rightness or wrongness of it.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Intent is hard to gauge. How do you know what Truman's intent was? Once the bombs were dropped and the Japanese surrendered unconditionally, one can claim this was the intent of the bombing.

But suppose Japan wasn't willing to surrender unconditionally, even after the bombs were dropped? Suppose the war went on, and the Americans managed to secure peace by negotiating terms. In this case the decision to negotiate terms would have responsible for preventing carnage, not the bomb. A different intent for the bombing would be assigned.

In actuality neither of these happened. The Japanese surrendered shortly after the bombing, but the surrender was not unconditional, surrender was conditional on the emperor staying on his throne. Since no effort at negotiation was made before the bombs were dropped, nobody knows if the Japanese would have surrendered before the bombings if offered this single condition.

Other motives for dropping the bomb (i.e. to send a message to the USSR) may have applied. So it is not certain what the intent really was.

And then there is the choice of target. Why not target the center of government? Why not destroy an entire army in the field to demonstrate the futility of opposing such immensely powerful weapons. Why instead chose a city of no great military significance, which has not been significantly damaged and which was ringed by hills that would magnify the blast? How does the target selection comport with an intent to minimize carnage? It seems to be the target was selected to maximize carnage (perhaps to impress the Soviets?).

As for OBL, after the 911 attack the US responded with two wars. And OBL said that this is what he intended. But suppose the US had not responded by waging two wars, but instead withdrew from the Mideast. I suspect that OBL would then say that this was his intent.

When we (after the fact) assign intent to Truman or OBL, we are informed by what actually happened. Since the Japanese surrendered, Truman claims this was his intent. Since the US counterattacked after 911, OBL claims this was his intent.

The assignation of intent still seems to depend on what the victim does.

I agree.

.....

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Intent is hard to gauge. How do you know what Truman's intent was? Once the bombs were dropped and the Japanese surrendered unconditionally, one can claim this was the intent of the bombing.

But suppose Japan wasn't willing to surrender unconditionally, even after the bombs were dropped? Suppose the war went on, and the Americans managed to secure peace by negotiating terms. In this case the decision to negotiate terms would have responsible for preventing carnage, not the bomb. A different intent for the bombing would be assigned.

In actuality neither of these happened. The Japanese surrendered shortly after the bombing, but the surrender was not unconditional, surrender was conditional on the emperor staying on his throne. Since no effort at negotiation was made before the bombs were dropped, nobody knows if the Japanese would have surrendered before the bombings if offered this single condition.

And then there is the choice of target. Why not target the center of government? Why not destroy an entire army in the field to demonstrate the futility of opposing such immensely powerful weapons. Why instead chose a city of no great military significance, which has not been significantly damaged and which was ringed by hills that would magnify the blast? How does the target selection comport with an intent to minimize carnage? It seems to be the target was selected to maximize carnage (perhaps to impress the Soviets?).

The assignation of intent still seems to depend on what the victim does.

Hirohito was useful in a postwar scenario as for the symbolic transfer of power from a military-dominated clique to a democratic system. Hitler was useful only as a whipping boy to eventually be hanged, burned at the stake, or fed to tigers -- whatever would have seemed appropriate at the time -- as a demonstration of extreme disdain for his deeds.

Hitler could never have been trusted by any victor; he was a classic sociopath except for an unbounded ego that made him supremely dangerous. Only because Nazi Germany collapsed in the winter and late spring of 1945 before the US had the atom bomb was Germany spared The Bomb. Some contrafactual historians have argued that had the Germans driven back the Allies on D-Day and been able to hold out against the Russians, then Germany would have been nuked. The Reichskanzlei as the target? That would have destroyed the command structure and created a crisis of succession.

How interesting that your quote agrees with what I said, unless you black out in the middle. Was that just an oversight on your part? I'll repeat your quote here (with emphasis added to the part you must have meant to leave out, trying to make your point):

"The Muslims have realized they are the main targets of the aggression of the coalition of Jews and the Crusaders [bin Laden's term for the West]. The latest of these assaults is the greatest disaster since the death of Prophet Muhammad — that is the occupation of the country of two sacred mosques—the home of Islam [Saudi Arabia]. If Allah wills and I live, God willing I will expel the Jews and the Christians from Arabia. Our Muslim brothers throughout the world, your brothers in the country of two sacred places and in Palestine request your support. They are asking you to participate with them against their enemies, who are also your enemies—the Israelis and Americans—by causing them as much harm as can be possibly achieved." - OBL

So, basically, he is aiming to exert increased force towards furtherance of good (as he sees it). Yep. Just like Truman. Of course, bin Laden failed in his ostensible goal, while Truman succeeded in his. It helps that Truman's ostensible goal was already a done deal before the bombs fell, and that on bin Laden's time scale the match is far from decided. But whatever floats your boat...

You can note, that the 'special insight' I seem to possess consists mainly in actually paying attention to the things I try to understand. Tell your bosses. Could come in handy.

I suggest that this is as good as any place to start to get a better sense of the Japanese collective mindset regarding surrender -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

A great suggestion. Let's try that 'paying attention' thing again. Hmmm...

On June 22, the Emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first. "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them." It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. Other neutral nations, like Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City were known to be willing to play a role in making peace, but they were so small they couldn't have done more than deliver the Allies' terms of surrender and Japan's acceptance or rejection...

On July 12, Togo directed Sato to tell the Russians that, "His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland."

On August 2, Togo wrote to Sato,
" ... However, it should not be difficult for you to realize that ... our time to proceed with arrangements of ending the war before the enemy lands on the Japanese mainland is limited, on the other hand it is difficult to decide on concrete peace conditions here at home all at once. "

Now, according to my sources, Little Boy was dropped on August 6, and throughout, the US, having long since broken the Japanese codes, was fully aware of the developing position of the Japanese leadership regarding the war. Very clearly, every single one of the communiques from the wikipedia article you linked show a Japanese leadership trying to find a way to end a war that they had already recognized was lost. As President at the time, it seems safe to assume that Truman was kept fairly well-informed of that, too.

But, Justin, with your 2007 superior understanding, wisdom, and morals, compared to that of Truman, I guess you have all the certitude.

Huh? Why does it hurt your feelings so much to have the same standards applied to your own side as to the fuzzy-wuzzies?

You know, Justin, I've seen my share of combat; more than I'd ever care to discuss.

ooohh. I just bust a nut thinking about it you manly man, you.

But I don't have that superiority thingee going for me

Mmm-hm. Yep. No sign of that 'superiority' thing. Why you must be a thousand times more humble than any of us mere mortals here, to have seen and done all you have and not to throw that in all our faces at every opportunity. Kudos.

But in closing, I have to say that any one who sees Truman's choices in the same "morally equivalent" light as those as OBL is either a sociopath or just playing at being a shithead. Which is it?

It is the guy who sees things incompletely (that is, who misses the various non-defective folk who might see things in a different way than himself). All manner of people can see all manner of things. I'd be willing to bet that I could find some perfectly well-adjusted Japanese (to pick a non-wog example) who might be inclined to think that way. There are probably others, too.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Reichskanzlei as the target? That would have destroyed the command structure and created a crisis of succession.

Goring was Hitler's legal successor in Dec 1944. Later Hitler made Donitz his successor and when Hitler died Donitz did become leader. There was no crisis of succession. As for destroying the enemy's command center, isn't that a desirable goal in war?