Where is YOUR moral compass? Is it broken? Do you have one?

a reply to: pheonix358


People in general, as a whole, individually and in groups of various sizes live to follow designated leaders--heck they, we seek them out--and people in general can justify anything, anything at all particularly in the course of following their leaders and conforming to the laws their leaders have handed down. Factor in patriotic spirit, religious faith, natural racism (as consequence of place/group/ societal membership at birth) and otherwise fear of everything they do not understand, and friends, you've got the makings of the perfect volunteer killing force, or a population that can eat big macs, sip milkshakes, swill beer--all while their nation breaks all of the "moral" codes read laws of what most of accept as remotely human behavior. How easy is it to turn off the news, crumple up the newspaper and just tune out the use of air delivered high explosives by our beloved nation on child, woman, man flesh?

People have moral compasses, perhaps, but their consciences are easily hijacked, too easily purchased to stop one single atrocity or come together and enact real change in the way governments deal in mass death and call it big business. I still like to believe in basic human decency; try to impart that on my own offspring, and yet how does one make the distinction to a teen, justify or explain how patriotic atrocity is one nation under god good and just, while another is malevolent simply because our nation (the only one sanctioned by god, right?) did not carry it out or authorize it?

I'd say that we the people in general enable our governments to wield their war machines but perhaps that is not completely fair. No one I know is willing to fight and die to change things--I mean really change them. All the murdered children and young men we go on and on and on about--who among us, here, in the sheltered first world is really prepared to either directly intervene and fight to save them or fight the system in which they live to prevent arms sales, to prevent these mass homicidal policies we civilized peoples call just wars and revel in diplomacy by the sword? I mean come on, I'll rent the C-130 if you all bring your parachutes and gun collections and we'll drop into Gaza and go protect some kids. Volunteers?

We can discuss morals until our mortality catches us up, but my guess is we'll all order takeout pizza, head through the drive through or download some cool music instead of doing anything about it. And you know what, that's okay, isn't it? Because discussing these kinds of things isn't so bad-- from the safety of our war-less lives.

Moral compasses? We may have'em but I don't think they've ever held majority ... anywhere.

a reply to: pheonix358

"People used to have a moral compass."

When? When they were saying "Nits make lice"? It was used as a justification to murder Indian children here in the US.
In Vietnam? Children were killed quite a lot during that war.
In every war Children die, women as well, and they get raped. This is the world we live in. Doesn't make it right by any means,but it has never been any different. I wish that all wars would end,TODAY,RIGHT NOW. But it makes no difference. The wars WILL continue,and people will die. Some of them will be children. Its been that way since the beginning and will be till the end.

a reply to: Dimithae

Let us go back 50 years then.

When did the military target schools or hospitals knowing they were refugee centres?

When did the Police raid a home and point machine guns at little kids, .... they would have been strung up by their testicles by all the Mums and Dads in the neighborhood.

Yes there have always been civilian deaths, it is the nature of war, but this is very different.

This is the deliberate targeting of schools in full knowledge that they are used as shelters.

This is the Police raiding a house and deliberately aiming machine guns at kids so they become docile and submissive.

No! It has not always been like this.

I thought humanity was supposed to be progressing.

It is not.

We are de-evolving.

P

Japan had even offered conditional surrender weeks before the bombs were used

a reply to: marc72
You do have a Source for this Claim,,,,Because, I can't find any and I was very curious after I read your Statement.

a reply to: pheonix358

Children are routinely victimized in just about every culture. It's no surprise they should become casualties of war.

In our own country, we say we love our children, but in a sense, I do not think that is true. Sure we love 'our own' children- for the most part. But one needs only to scratch the surface of society to see that when it comes to the children of 'others', we really don't appear to feel the same.

I once started a thread on the subject that after all of this time looks tame to the stories that could be posted there today.

A Conspiracy Against Children: Exactly who is out of control?

Nearly a decade later, we are drugging more of our children than ever before. We convict them without legal representation and incarcerate them for minor offenses. We place children into solitary confinement and do little to prevent their abuse by sexual predators. We taze children. Beat them. Arrest them. Starve them. Neglect them.

If anyone thinks this isn't happening in our own country, you are either in denial or asleep. And if we were to examine elsewhere in the world, the horrors are that much greater.

It angers me everytime I see someone complain merely about the presence of children....in resturants....planes....out playing....and in other public places.

Our cultural disdain starts there....and it is that seemingly collective disdain which permits some to later justify or intellectualize the abuse or death of children in almost any context.

So is it any wonder children become the true victims of war?

They have a hard enough time when there is peace.

Maybe one day, things will be different for them.

a reply to: loam

I hear you!

I grew up being one of those children that society really didn't care about along with tens of thousands of others, it is not good.

Rather that progressing we are going backwards.

It is just so sad!

Why can't we get it right! What annoys me is people claiming it is OK to bomb schools and civilian shelters becuse of this or that or the other.

It is not and it must stop now.

P

Suffer the children to come unto me.......ive always liked that one.....
But people are dying in droves....not just Gazans, or Israelis...but all over the miserable world.....
Here, in the heart of the richest country ever....children are hungry, and far far worse.....
The heart has gone out of men.....the spirit of compassion is dying......
its everywhere...in business, in society,in our homes,schools and churches.......human behavior is being altered in very unsubtle ways......
They are attempting to turn people into screw in replacements of each other like light bulbs or toilets......

originally posted by: guohua

Japan had even offered conditional surrender weeks before the bombs were used

a reply to: marc72
You do have a Source for this Claim,,,,Because, I can't find any and I was very curious after I read your Statement.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

Why the Atomic Bombings Could Have Been Avoided

www.ihr.org...

a reply to: guohua

You do have a Source for this Claim

Sure



Japanese time line before bombs

a reply to: pheonix358

It's war. Where was the moral compass when thousands of German civilian died in allied bombing during WW II?

War is an ugly game where you leave your moral compass at the door. War is a game where you don't want an equal playing field, you don't desire even teams, and where not everyone gets a damned trophy.

War is beating the opposing side so badly that they surrender.

Moral compass? Really?

I admire people who can remain so aloof and lofty with their compasses always pointing true. War does not provide that luxury for those fighting, though.

When the game rules stipulate that "if I don't kill you, you will kill me" then morality takes a backseat and is told to shut the hell up!

I will openly admit to being a hypocrite. I abhor war. I am repulsed by the needless death that peppers any landscape. I'd enjoy nothing but a life of peace and tranquility.

But I will gut the nearest son-of-a-bitch who threatens that. I will torture, burn, break and kill to defend what I love.

So will any side when fighting a war.

In real life though, there is always going to be a winner and a loser. No-one wants to be the loser. Everyone wants to be the winner.

The moral compass? Those that will never fight, are always sure, and always right have nothing to fear from their moral compass. It will always point the way they want.

My compass is like any other, however. It point is determined by how I am facing something.

(attacks may commence now)

a reply to: beezzer

But I will gut the nearest son-of-a-bitch who threatens that. I will torture, burn, break and kill to defend what I love.

So will I. Gutting is messy though but I take the point. After you have gutted them, will you gut their children. Down to what age do you think?

The Israelis and Hamas can Gut each other until there is a sea of guts covering the desert.

I acknowledge that in war there will always be civilian casualties, it is the nature of war and few ways to avoid it.

But the deliberate targeting of children is wrong. I don't care who is doing the targeting.

I am appalled that any free thinking person can accept that just because one group of butt holes uses children as shields that the other side can then blow away said children. That makes them bigger butt holes than the first lot.

War is war and it always will be.

You seem to think that wanting a better world is being aloof and lofty.

If the people of the world will not stand up and denounce the deliberate massacre of children, the targeting of children then I am all for the next doomsday comet or I invite Mother Nature to bring on the ice age.

This is not just some unfortunate civilians caught in the cross fire, this is targeting families and children when you have been told that they are there.

Won't you stand up for what is right.

Where is your humanity. I don't like this world. Stop, I want to get off.

But then, if all the supposed aloof and lofty leave, then what is left.

Just a mob of people who want to gut each other?

So should your country go in somewhere and deliberately, knowingly, target children.

You OK with that?

I don't think so.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

There will always be a tragic loss of life. Is a child more dear than a husband or wife or brother or mother or father?

This conflict, this war will continue until both sides cease or one side wins.

You can't put a happy-face sticker on war and rate it PG-13 (some violence may exist).

It's good and nice and noble to say, "Don't hurt the children". Children are just another casualty of war.
Humanity is a casualty of war.
Morality is a casualty of war.

Since when has there been an age-limit to war? Sorry, you can't die, you aren't old enough?

Hiding behind children is a tactic used by one side to win a war.

Ignoring the children used as a shield is another tactic used to win a war.

Any death is disgusting. Winning usually is.

a reply to: beezzer

There are no winners in war.

originally posted by: Expat888
a reply to: beezzer

There are no winners in war.

You know something. . . you're right.

originally posted by: Expat888
One considering the extremely limited area of land that gaza is .. its large population density .. the fact that there is NO safe place for the people of gaza to go because they are penned in like cattle . There are no areas away from people to launch attacks from . Gaza is the worlds biggest death camp.

Not only that but Israel tell the Gazans to flee the areas and most are going to UN schools and shelters... the UN are then giving Israel the locations in order for them NOT to bomb them... and then Israel go right ahead and BOMB them.
Israel are DELIBERATELY targeting innocent civilians.

War is stupid. After a whole bunch of killing happens, one side will eventually be tired of loosing too many of their people and they will succumb to their aggressors will. If honest discussion was to happen BEFORE any bloodshed and both sides knew that a compromise HAD to be reached, or innocents would die, this would be such a better place.

Unfortunately, it's not like that. Hamas launches missiles from schools and hospitals, hoping the Israelis will fire back at those locations so they can show the world how evil they are. Did they kill kids and innocents? Yep. So congrats. Mission accomplished. And all those children who died will never know the joys this life has to offer.

Fighting never solves anything. It only hurts both sides and forces an eventual discussion that should have been the first option. Maybe in the next life, people will learn how to love.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: guohua

Japan had even offered conditional surrender weeks before the bombs were used

a reply to: marc72
You do have a Source for this Claim,,,,Because, I can't find any and I was very curious after I read your Statement.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

Why the Atomic Bombings Could Have Been Avoided

www.ihr.org...

I stand Humbly Corrected.
Thank you for this insight, I am reading the entire article now and will add it to my historical accounts.

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless

From your link.
Was Hirroshima Necessary

originally posted by: marc72
a reply to: guohua

You do have a Source for this Claim

Sure



Japanese time line before bombs

Yes, I read it from an other member, this is the site you used.
Link

a reply to: pheonix358

Why can't we get it right! What annoys me is people claiming it is OK to bomb schools and civilian shelters becuse of this or that or the other.

I never understood this either. I never understood why they didn't just send ground troops to these locations. If they're so concerned about civilian casualties that they "call ahead", they could minimize them even further with ground troops.