Are atheists discriminatory towards theists?

samcdkey said:
Of course; its ALWAYS logical to kill women and children rather than armed men; people can delude themselves into anything
Click to expand...
That's not really fair to say. WWII Japan was a unique scenario; the entire population was mobilized. Every citizen, down to the last woman and child, was prepared to fight the Allied forces to the death. A massive invasion of the Japanese mainland really would have been unspeakably horrific.
 
baumgarten said:
That's not really fair to say. WWII Japan was a unique scenario; the entire population was mobilized. Every citizen, down to the last woman and child, was prepared to fight the Allied forces to the death. A massive invasion of the Japanese mainland really would have been unspeakably horrific.
Click to expand...

Yes but it would have been better to target an area that was significant in a military sense rather than one that had not been bombed until then because it was not considered strategic; I would also be convinced of the rightness, if the US had not demanded "unconditional surrender" especially since they had to agree to the Japanese demand to retain their Emperor even after the bombing, if they had waited longer before throwing the second bomb and if the second bomb was not thrown in an area close to a school building; killing children and teachers. And soldiers are paid to fight and die, I doubt the figure would have reached 600,000 due to armed conflict and I would prefer the dead to be soldiers rather than infants, children and the elderly.
 
samcdkey said:
Yes but it would have been better to target an area that was significant in a military sense rather than one that had not been bombed until then because it was not considered strategic; I would also be convinced of the rightness, if the US had not demanded "unconditional surrender" especially since they had to agree to the Japanese demand to retain their Emperor even after the bombing, if they had waited longer before throwing the second bomb and if the second bomb was not thrown in an area close to a school building; killing children and teachers. And soldiers are paid to fight and die, I doubt the figure would have reached 600,000 due to armed conflict and I would prefer the dead to be soldiers rather than infants, children and the elderly.
Click to expand...
Hey, they probably would have only needed one bomb if they dropped it on Tokyo. ;)

But yeah, there might have been more "humane" targets available than the ones chosen.
 
They couldn't drop it on Tokyo. There were problems with high winds; even the firebombing of the city (which is considered a war crime but was never acknowledged as such) was carried out at low levels. That would not have been suitable for an atom bomb

http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html
 
I’ve read that the fire bombing combined with the conventional bombing of Tokyo was overall more powerful than the atom bomb that was dropped. It still did not stop the Japanese from making war. They literally worshipped the Emperor. This religion was combined with a serious case of nationalism.

After the first bomb the Japanese thought that no civilized nation could drop another. They thought the world would step in to stop it from happening again. They dreamt of keeping some of their colonies. They were wrong.

I think the choice of the Hiroshima was due to weather conditions.
Nagasaki was convient.


One would have thought that after WWII we would have never had war again?
But we did and we do.
The Chinese should have learned what it is like to be humiliated. The populous should understand what it’s like to lose everything. It wasn’t long after WWII that they took over Tibet.

And they’re Atheists.


Bush launched his War for Oil with the Phase “Modern Crusade”.
What an idiot.
But the American people follow him, what does that say about us?


Sometimes it worries me – Humanity.

Michael
 
You think the war is the only thing to worry about? The other day I was asked about starving children and I did some research; I'd worked with the Hunger Project in India but I've been out of touch the last two years (the joys of graduate school).

It turns out the very countries that are giving "aid" and loans to the starving countries are ripping them off via corporations that put small farmers out of work and export much needed food out of the country, exhorbitant debts ($13 dollars fro every dollar) and support to dictator (read puppet) regimes.

Inhumanity disguised as humanity.

There is no depth we cannot sink to, it would seem. Shame
 
samcdkey said:
Yes but it would have been better to target an area that was significant in a military sense rather than one that had not been bombed until then because it was not considered strategic; I would also be convinced of the rightness, if the US had not demanded "unconditional surrender" especially since they had to agree to the Japanese demand to retain their Emperor even after the bombing, if they had waited longer before throwing the second bomb and if the second bomb was not thrown in an area close to a school building; killing children and teachers. And soldiers are paid to fight and die, I doubt the figure would have reached 600,000 due to armed conflict and I would prefer the dead to be soldiers rather than infants, children and the elderly.
Click to expand...

First of all why should wee have settled for anything less that unconditional surrender. It is not like we started that war. Hell we were sitting nice and peacefully in Pearl Harbor and quite willing to let Japan have China. If they had stopped there and not pressed USSR too badly we would have let the little bastards have their field day. But, No, they had to hit us with a surprise attack. They didn't care if they got civillians in with the paid soldiers. They were gunning for averything that moved.

Second Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. Both places were part of the Japanese army infrastructure. Hiroshima as a training facility and rally point, which means it also had warehouses of military supplies. Nagasaki was a communication center and a hardened bumnker for the Generals to hide in. We dropped the first to send a message and cripple their ability to arm the entire population. The second came timed to get the General in their bunker. So it is 600,000 deaths versus every japanese being over the age of three . I think we did the humane thing.
 
TW Scott said:
First of all why should wee have settled for anything less that unconditional surrender. It is not like we started that war. Hell we were sitting nice and peacefully in Pearl Harbor and quite willing to let Japan have China. If they had stopped there and not pressed USSR too badly we would have let the little bastards have their field day. But, No, they had to hit us with a surprise attack. They didn't care if they got civillians in with the paid soldiers. They were gunning for averything that moved.

Second Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. Both places were part of the Japanese army infrastructure. Hiroshima as a training facility and rally point, which means it also had warehouses of military supplies. Nagasaki was a communication center and a hardened bumnker for the Generals to hide in. We dropped the first to send a message and cripple their ability to arm the entire population. The second came timed to get the General in their bunker. So it is 600,000 deaths versus every japanese being over the age of three . I think we did the humane thing.
Click to expand...

Another victim of propaganda.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
 
samcdkey said:
It turns out the very countries that are giving "aid" and loans to the starving countries are ripping them off via corporations that put small farmers out of work and export much needed food out of the country, exhorbitant debts ($13 dollars fro every dollar) and support to dictator (read puppet) regimes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is a tough one.

I think that if the IMF gives loans to corrupt governments and those leaders steal a bunch of the loan money, are eventually overthrown by the people and replaced with new leaders. Why should the people shoulder the debt? It’s the fault of the idiot at the IMF – therefore they can be stuck with it.

I remember reading about a town in SA (maybe Brazil?) that had their water privatized. Soon it was illegal for the villagers to take water from the stream or to pump water from their own wells. I have no idea how a democratically elected offical could make a deal like this and remain in office? It’s mind boggling. Needless to say, all hell broke out and the water was soon de-privatized.


I’m partial to the notions: give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a life time. But, really, these are age old questions and I don’t think anyone knows what the answers are? Or if there even are any long lasting answers.


Years ago in the Guangdong province of southern China they had a severe food shortage - which was blamed on the weather. As the years went by and the people continued to starve to death the Chinese officials were so desperate they decided to try a limited version of Capitalism. Basically, if you somehow managed to make enough food to meet this pitiful quota then the rest is yours to sell or do with what you like. Although the weather hadn't changed, the very next year the province had a surplus of food. Everyone could be fed and there was extra food to boot.

That was start of Capitalism in China.


So government is part of the answer.
Another, I think, is owning private property.
Being able to elect the rulers seems to help.
Believing in money is important.
An open Media is essential.
Education is very important.
Equality between the sexes is helpful.

Sorry if I diverged but there just isn’t an easy answer to the question of feeding the world.


I just hope they don’t privatize air!
:)


How about you? Any ideas?

Michael
 
Michael:

I believe that the hunger is caused either because the peple are lacking in educaton/skills or are not allowed to use them to make money and also because they do not have a say in decisions that affect their lives.

Ron:
Have there been any previous threads on ending hunger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top