Trump issues at least two pardons to service members

[demi-conservative]

I'm not sure what you mean by paying the price with our souls. Would you rather be dead or let the world and your loved ones be consumed with darkness and lose all freedoms? And yes, if it came to using chemical weapons or losing a war with Communists or Jihadists, especially if they are using them, I would have no problem. When the Germans started using Mustard gas the Allies did too, rather than lose the war. I don't think we lost our souls then. Whatever that means... And Charles, I am sticking by my principles, I think there are certain freedoms worth fighting for.

The evil of chemical weapons is nowhere near the popular stigma. But watch out where you're going...

Nuking Japan was completely unnecessary. The real reason they surrendered was because USSR was about to invade them. That the USSR would attack Japan was completely predictable, and the probability that Japan would surrender to prevent that was considerable.

All the nonsense about 'nuking being justified to save millions of our young soldiers' lives'. Lies, utter lies, the USSR would have taken down Japan by itself if it had to.

But, you see, they wanted an actual test of the new weapons on actual targets. That is sheer evil. You don't have to defend that, and you shouldn't.

[rogue06]

It used to be considered "ungentlemanly" to kill officers on the field of battle because it was feared that the common fighting men would cause undue violence if not restrained by a superior.

It may also go back to the concept of ransoming captives.

[Charles]

Charles, that is just daft! The point about God's commands is that at times we will run into men who so wicked that they need to be destroyed. The means are immaterial. It doesn't matter much to the dead if they were killed by gas or a daisy cutter (BLU-82)....

You pointed to it yourself yesterday to defend your harsh lines so stand by the fact that you think your God justifies the killing of children. And of course the means are not immaterial. And the number of dead people, including the innocent ones, among them the children, will of course be much larger if you use chemical weapons or whatever evils you might suggest. I have a hard time imagining children being so wicked that they "need to be destroyed". I find it impossible and simply inhuman. Your statement "It doesn't matter much to the dead if they were killed by gas or a daisy cutter (BLU-82)...." is one i could imagine your enemies and those you would protect us against would use to justify their evils as well. Funny how you are so concerned in ethichal discussion on how atheism can (in your understanding) provide no reason to act in certain ways or respect certain values and reasons. And then, now, discussion war you fall to the lowest of the lowest and point to the killing of children, no problem with chemincal weapons and the like. You are promoting the ideas that I have heard many apologetics claim follow from atheism.

I mean really Charles are you suggesting that if China or Russia started nuking the US that we should not respond with nukes? You can now resume polishing your halo...

Talking about right or wrong is not "polishing your halo". I explicitly said I might end up doing what was wrong if pushed to extremes. That would not make it right, though.

[seer]

The evil of chemical weapons is nowhere near the popular stigma. But watch out where you're going...

Nuking Japan was completely unnecessary. The real reason they surrendered was because USSR was about to invade them. That the USSR would attack Japan was completely predictable, and the probability that Japan would surrender to prevent that was considerable.

All the nonsense about 'nuking being justified to save millions of our young soldiers' lives'. Lies, utter lies, the USSR would have taken down Japan by itself if it had to.

But, you see, they wanted an actual test of the new weapons on actual targets. That is sheer evil. You don't have to defend that, and you shouldn't.

Sorry Demi, that is nonsense. Russia was not yet in a position to attack Japan, it didn't even have real navy. Second it did save America lives.

[Charles]

Nuking Japan was completely unnecessary.

The scary thing is, you can find videos of those who did it who will gladly tell how they did it, what it looked like, "I pressed the button" and other statements along those lines. They literally burned thousands and thousands of people, were the reason that children saw their parents, brothers and sisters burn in front of their eyes, leaving them to die slowly or live in pain for the rest of their lives and they don't seem to have any second thoughts about it at all. Scary.

[demi-conservative]

Sorry Demi, that is nonsense. Russia was not yet in a position to attack Japan, it didn't even have real navy.

Nonsense.

Second it did save America lives.

This is just a retreat. Part of the popular justification is 'it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives', it at best saved a small number. It killed more civilians than the lives it 'saved'.

[seer]

You pointed to it yourself yesterday to defend your harsh lines so stand by the fact that you think your God justifies the killing of children. And of course the means are not immaterial. And the number of dead people, including the innocent ones, among them the children, will of course be much larger if you use chemical weapons or whatever evils you might suggest. I have a hard time imagining children being so wicked that they "need to be destroyed". I find it impossible and simply inhuman. Your statement "It doesn't matter much to the dead if they were killed by gas or a daisy cutter (BLU-82)...." is one i could imagine your enemies and those you would protect us against would use to justify their evils as well. Funny how you are so concerned in ethichal discussion on how atheism can (in your understanding) provide no reason to act in certain ways or respect certain values and reasons. And then, now, discussion war you fall to the lowest of the lowest and point to the killing of children, no problem with chemincal weapons and the like. You are promoting the ideas that I have heard many apologetics claim follow from atheism.

Charles I'm not advocating for war, nor do I advocate gassing anyone. But that in war we should use whatever is necessary to win and protect our own and our freedoms.

Talking about right or wrong is not "polishing your halo". I explicitly said I might end up doing what was wrong if pushed to extremes. That would not make it right, though.

But if a follow your logic we all should just lay down and die. The bottom line is that in total war we and our children will survive or the enemy and their children will survive. I vote for us and our children. And I did not say any of this is right or moral, it is what it is though...

[seer]

Nonsense.

Yes demi, that is nothing. Look at how many ships were necessary for the invasion of Okinawa...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinaw...rder_of_battle

This is just a retreat. Part of the popular justification is 'it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives', it at best saved a small number. It killed more civilians than the lives it 'saved'.

Complete bull. Never mind the Japanese lives that would have lost in an invasion.

[Charles]

Charles I'm not advocating for war, nor do I advocate gassing anyone. But that in war we should use whatever is necessary to win and protect our own and our freedoms.

But certain forms of "protection", including those that cause a great number of innocent lives to be lost, those that are not decent and against moral standards (such as your idea of pointing to a God who tells us to kill children) should bot be used. To call it protection is fake because we will lose integrity, humanity and the values worth living for. As they say: "Stay human or die". There are certian conditions under which life is not worth living. Your idea that "we" are worth so much more than "they" so that we can use "whatever necessary" is the exact line of reasoning that is not only a threat to our integrity but also a threat to our actual security beacuse "we" or "they" are more likely to use those means if we promote them as justifiable.

But if a follow your logic we all should just lay down and die.

Never said that.

The bottom line is that in total war we and our children will survive or the enemy and their children will survive. I vote for us and our children. And I did not say any of this is right or moral, it is what it is though...

The bottom line is that there is so much more than your physical survival at stake. We are persons with (hopefully) ideas, values, moral standards and love for so much more than staying alive. You reason as if all that matters is your survival and everything else is not as important. That seems to be the way some of you like to portrai atheists when we discuss this on a purely theoretical level. You even say: "And I did not say any of this is right or moral, it is what it is though..." So, all in all, right and wrong does not matter much when it comes to your survival over others? Or, did you forget to think twice?

[demi-conservative]

Yes demi, that is nothing. Look at how many ships were necessary for the invasion of Okinawa...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinaw...rder_of_battle

Read your own article. Scroll down. How many Japanese ships opposed?

" the few remaining capital ships of the Imperial Japanese Combined Fleet had been sunk or otherwise put out of action at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the Allies were effectively unopposed in terms of surface vessels; a single mission consisting of the superbattleship Yamato and a few escorts was undertaken, but the task force did not get within 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) of the invasion area".

The answer is that close to zero, if not actually zero. "Necessary" is false. With Russia being so much closer to Japan too, they would have needed far less ships to invade.

Complete bull. Never mind the Japanese lives that would have lost in an invasion.

As I was saying, once the Russians attacked Japanese-held mainland territory on August 9th, that would have and was sufficient for them to surrender, since they had no dream of holding off the USSR and USA at the same time. The nukes were completely unnecessary.

[seer]

But certain forms of "protection", including those that cause a great number of innocent lives to be lost, those that are not decent and against moral standards (such as your idea of pointing to a God who tells us to kill children) should bot be used. To call it protection is fake because we will lose integrity, humanity and the values worth living for. As they say: "Stay human or die". There are certian conditions under which life is not worth living. Your idea that "we" are worth so much more than "they" so that we can use "whatever necessary" is the exact line of reasoning that is not only a threat to our integrity but also a threat to our actual security beacuse "we" or "they" are more likely to use those means if we promote them as justifiable.

Have it your way Charles, but I certainly would not want you as commander and chief.

Never said that.

You said there were principles worth dying for. Isn't not using gas in war one of those principles?

The bottom line is that there is so much more than your physical survival at stake. We are persons with (hopefully) ideas, values, moral standards and love for so much more than staying alive. You reason as if all that matters is your survival and everything else is not as important. That seems to be the way some of you like to portrai atheists when we discuss this on a purely theoretical level. You even say: "And I did not say any of this is right or moral, it is what it is though..." So, all in all, right and wrong does not matter much when it comes to your survival over others? Or, did you forget to think twice?

Which is it? Are you willing to die, have your loved ones die or lose your freedoms to uphold you principles?

[seer]

Read your own article. Scroll down. How many Japanese ships opposed?

" the few remaining capital ships of the Imperial Japanese Combined Fleet had been sunk or otherwise put out of action at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the Allies were effectively unopposed in terms of surface vessels; a single mission consisting of the superbattleship Yamato and a few escorts was undertaken, but the task force did not get within 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) of the invasion area".

The answer is that close to zero, if not actually zero. "Necessary" is false. With Russia being so much closer to Japan too, they would have needed far less ships to invade.

I didn't say they couldn't invade but how many troop ships did they have, support ships? How man aircraft carriers? They had a piddling Navy. And how many from both sides would have died. I doubt very much if the Japanese would have surrender to Russian.

As I was saying, once the Russians attacked Japanese-held mainland territory on August 9th, that would have and was sufficient for them to surrender, since they had no dream of holding off the USSR and USA at the same time. The nukes were completely unnecessary.

And I doubt that they would have won, or at least it would have been a long drawn out conflict with many more deaths.

[Teallaura]

Yeah, and the Rules of Engagement have been all over the place.

That's the part I object to. Not expecting soldiers and police to abide by rules that make us different than them because we try to preserve our ideals even in the darkest places - that's part of the responsibility that comes with the job.

BUT the rules must be clear and guidelines sensible where rules are unwise. A genuine mistake shouldn't EVER be treated as a crime. Nor should vengeance be substituted for honor just because war is unimaginably hard. And we have to give enough leeway to let them work within the parameters.

And the only rules they can be responsible for are the ones they know - not the new memo they never saw.

[oxmixmudd]

I have not said that, you sanctimonious, dishonest hack. Only a fool thinks that a gentleman's agreement calling itself international 'law', about how to wage total war, has anything to do with morality except occasionally and accidentally.

So predictable. But no, I will not support the idea we should abandon all restraint in warfare.

[Mountain Man]

But if a follow your logic we all should just lay down and die. The bottom line is that in total war we and our children will survive or the enemy and their children will survive. I vote for us and our children. And I did not say any of this is right or moral, it is what it is though...

As the saying goes, the point of war is not to die for your country, but to make your enemies die for their's.