3 ms·
Studying history is always useful. We should have known from WW1 what happens when we don't help rebuild effectively, and from WW2 what happens when you do, sim
by moogleii 13y ago
Studying history is always useful. We should have known from WW1 what happens when we don't help rebuild effectively, and from WW2 what happens when you do, simply speaking. Yet we pretty much ignored all that info for Iraq.
Also, "intentionally" can always be fudged. We "intentionally" bombed the house with the suspected terrorist in a dense neighborhood, but "unintentionally" killed a lot of civilians in the surrounding area. We don't seem to be revolted enough by that to stop doing it.
- woodchuck64 13y agoThe first paragraph contains this: "Obviously, if the bombings weren't necessary to win the war, then bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong". I don't see why articles need to go there. Studying history is useful but making moral judgments mixes societies at different levels of moral development. Unless "unintentionally" can be fudged to morally sanction wiping out a city with a nuclear weapon today, I don't see the point. Maybe I slightly exaggerated the moral repugnance of society today towards civilian death. But the difference between moral attitudes toward civilian death today and civilian death in WW2 is so dramatic, a little bit of exaggeration does very little to weaken the point.