Posted on 03/24/2016 7:13:05 PM PDT by annalex
Did you or did you not write:
In my post I said civilians are often killed as a matter of design. That would mean the Holocaust, wouldnt it?
And did you or did you not earlier say:
There are no innocents in war. Combatants and civilians get killed in war as a consequence of it. Sometimes by tragic circumstance for civilians and sometimes by design as a matter of strategic design and combatants as a matter of design alsoAnd did you not say:
I never said civilian [casualties] were avoidable
So were the East European Jews killed because their killing was "unavoidable", they were not really innocents and the Holocaust was "a matter of design", or what?
If this conversation is difficult for you, just say so. I wouldn't want to exasperate you in any way. My desire is to penetrate the mind of someone who finds the bombardment of Dresden morally acceptable and the Holocaust of the Jews not morally acceptable. Even though, you said both are equally "unavoidable", the victims were not innocent and the killing was "matter of design".
Please elaborate. I don't recognize any such "obvious moral duty".
What causes this bizarre analogy between Muslims and Nazis (other than too much Mark Levin listening)?
Islam, rooted in the seventh century and now undergoing a revival of seventh-century behavior is in no way similar to German National Socialism, a completely twentieth century heresy of modernism which, unlike Islam, no longer exists.
I agree that it is important which side is the aggressor and which is not. Why did it take you so long to point that out, while you have made a dozen posts already denying the moral distinction between civilian and soldier and between innocence and aggression? Don’t you see that condemning an aggressor on the level of whole nations means condemning targeting of non-combatants on the individual operational level, and on individual soldier behavior level, as well?
I would note that specifically in Eastern/Central Europe by the time the Holocaust started happening there, the Soviet Union and not Germany was the primary aggressor because they were rolling over countries other than USSR with the intention to subjugate them (1948 proved that). Further, in 1939 against Poland the aggression was mutual between Germany attacking from the West and the USSR from the East. The USSR was also the clear aggressor against the Balt republics and Finland in 1939. So exactly where the Holocaust happened, the moral equation was not at all clear between Germany and the USSR.
Now, I understand that the Holocaust was morally reprehensible because the Jews were singled out for ethnicity and not for any particular behavior: the combatants perished alongside non-combatants, while other nationalities were treated far less harshly and more-or-less according to their combatant status. But I am the one in general sticking to the moral principles in war. according to them non-combatants may not be attacked.
These are not “semantics”. That is a fundamental moral law, whether it is codified in treaties or not, and by now it is all codified in Geneva conventions. The moral law makes the distinction between combatant and non-combatant. It makes no distinction about which side was an aggressor as regards their treatment. That is wise because aggression and defense are often mixed, like they were mixed in Central/Eastern Europe. Aggression and defense matter in determining the guilt or innocence of the national leaders. Churchill and Roosevelt led a defensive war and Hitler led an aggressive war. That is why we generally celebrate their leadership in the war, and we consider Hitler a war criminal. But if Churchill and Roosevelt had decided to single out one group of people and exterminate it without regard to their combatant status, they would have been war criminals as far as their putative holocaust would have been concerned. Even if it happened in a defensive and just war.
So, while the destruction of cities in the allied Europe, destruction of cities in Germany or the USSR or the Holocaust differed in the amount of victims, the civilians who were targeted and perished there were killed in violation of the moral law of war.
1. The first argument is Merkels claim that Germany and Europe are morally obliged to settle genuine refugees. There is obviously a moral duty to help but the argument that refugees must be settled in Europe fails for two simple reasons. Firstly, many of the incomers are not refugees but economic immigrants. Secondly, the heavy costs imposed by the influx on native Germans means that a moral policy must optimise the two sides interests, not maximize immigrant welfare at the expense of the host society. After all, the first duty of governments, especially in democracies, is to protect their constituents. Germany and the EU could be helping refugees in or near their own countries.
He distinguishes moral duty and legal duty, and he speaks of moral duty to help genuine refugees rather than to settle the refugees, especially without regard to the plausibility of the claim to be a refugee.
The moral duty to help refugees is bracketed by the hardship that may impose on Germany nd other players. That he also mentions.
The moral duty to help someone in distress when help is possible is, I think, a basic principle of Christian ethics.
“Moral law of war? War is the greatest immorality there is! Listen , it’s been fun. Good night.
Depends on the war's goals and methods. Defensive wars and defensive behaviors are moral and just. Wars prosecuted with a chivalrous posture, especially toward non-combatants, are prosecuted justly. Usually, many such aspects intersect in a particular war, making the judgment complex, but it does not mean morality has no place in a war at all.
It's morning where I am, time to go to work. It's been fun, thanks.
But the problem is that the "liberation" of 2+ billion people from responsible government (Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Turkey, Afrikaners and, to a degree,the USA) has created a condition of permanent and worsening distress among the 75% of the world population which is incapable of self-government.
This "moral duty" can only be carried out by permitting massive resettlements (i.e., national suicide) or colonialism.
I speak in a general way of the immorality of war and killing as I was referencing Biblical script before answering your post. I always address war from the point of an American who is grateful to have been spared in the decades of my life never having to have been in war and my admiration, respect and love of those who have served, including members of my own family who spilled their guts all over the globe in two world wars is SECOND TO NONE. I am fierce in defending what they did. And I am of the same mind to those who currently serve. I regret that I never served but I assure you I’m not trying to be some ‘’keyboard commando’’ here or a ‘’tough guy’’. Thus was my initial churlishness to you and I apologize. I don’t suffer fools and I won’t tolerate moral equivocation particularly as it applies to Americas military conduct in WW2.Ask me of Dresden and I’ll point to Auschwitz. I swore an oath to WW2 vets who have long left this world that when they were gone I would bear witness to what they told me. The truth of how they saved the world and gave us the greatest country on Earth. They wanted only to not be forgotten. No veteran dead or living ever wants their service to be forgotten. Have a nice day and thanks.
I think the author makes the same point, that help can be only extended marginally.
I actually would say that the West would have a moral duty to recolonize some parts of the world if the moods and circumstances change and we are invited to come and govern. At this point it sounds silly and impossible, and contrary to political correctness.
I wholly agree about the soldier profession; it’s towards some generals that I have my reservations. God bless, thank you.
Why on earth would you be so rude?
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.