Re: Ukraine
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
@Fisher: I overreacted the first time around, and I'm sorry for that. Seriously. Please see my more recent post, wherein I try to be a bit more civil.
Patriotism no. Necessity (or perceived necessity), yes. Hiroshima for instance was a war crime by any reasonable definition. It was also (probably) necessary, it (probably) did the world a favor, it (probably) saved more lives in the long run than were lost... But it was still a war crime. And I have seen you (and others) try to justify it.
You know what? Maybe it was justified. No other recourse, etc. The long term results are still somewhat ambiguous, though it looks like things may have turned out much worse otherwise. Point is, how can you be sure that the "bleeding heart scientists" didn't see things the same way?
For that matter, how can you be sure that they didn't draw the right conclusion? We may have the benefit of hindsight, but we can't examine alternate histories outside of pure theory.
Really? You honestly beleive that by critizing someone for commiting treason in the name of the greater good for humanity that it makes me a hypocrite or a jingoist? When have you ever heard me justify a war crime or a crime of any type simply because of patriotism?
As for the greater good of humanity.... there is no way I will EVER beleive that giving the soviets or the chinese the secrets to atomic weapons was an act that was for the greater good of humanity. And at the end of the day it does not matter what the rationalization was. Commiting a crime for any reason is not Ok.
Patriotism no. Necessity (or perceived necessity), yes. Hiroshima for instance was a war crime by any reasonable definition. It was also (probably) necessary, it (probably) did the world a favor, it (probably) saved more lives in the long run than were lost... But it was still a war crime. And I have seen you (and others) try to justify it.
You know what? Maybe it was justified. No other recourse, etc. The long term results are still somewhat ambiguous, though it looks like things may have turned out much worse otherwise. Point is, how can you be sure that the "bleeding heart scientists" didn't see things the same way?
For that matter, how can you be sure that they didn't draw the right conclusion? We may have the benefit of hindsight, but we can't examine alternate histories outside of pure theory.