wow, you're taking this thing a bit far. did someone hit a nerve? seriously, and for your readers, my point was that nuclear annihilation is not debateable on my site. nuclear annihilation of any form, regardless of who it's directed at (be that japan, russia, iraq, etc ad nauseum). talk about whatcha want over here. nobody's faulting you for that.

and see, here is a fine example of your religious beliefs defining your core beliefs. you've just confirmed exactly what i was talking about in my ealier post on your site. do you understand why it was so offensive to me now?

you're taking this thing a bit far

Precisely what "thing" do you mean, and how am I "taking [it] a bit far"? I'm continuing a discussion on my site that started on yours. I trust that is acceptable to you.

did someone hit a nerve?

Ed wanted to know how far corporate responsibility extended. I answered him. I don't see how that indicates that someone "hit a nerve" of mine.

nuclear annihilation is not debateable on my site

More precisely, nuclear annihilation is not even mentionable except in utterly emotional, negative terms.

do you understand why it was so offensive to me now?

I do not consider disagreements about political and religious beliefs to be offensive, and I consder those who find them offensive to be entirely unreasonable and insecure. Personal attacks and derogatory stereotypes are the sort of thing that I would consider offensive.

Do you have any comments pertinent to the discussion of individual responsibility for corporate actions?

well robert, since you've insisted on continuing a dialogue that should have gracefully died a long time ago, i felt my comments were pertinent. nobody's attacking you, brother, nobody at all. it seems you feel the need to defend yourself over here. i thought i apologized if i made you feel you needed to do that in an earlier comment on your site. my bad, i suppose.

More precisely, nuclear annihilation is not even mentionable except in utterly emotional, negative terms. you bet. it's an evil evil thing >IMO<.

and yes, i do have something post-related. i actually feel it's a bit contradictory to say that corporations are nothing but individuals while still saying that there is such a thing as corporate sin and corporate accountability. please, expand upon that. how do you account for that seeming contradiction?

i actually feel it's a bit contradictory to say that corporations are nothing but individuals while still saying that there is such a thing as corporate sin and corporate accountability. please, expand upon that. how do you account for that seeming contradiction?

I don't think they are contradictory. In fact, I think the one is the reason for the other. I must not have explained this very well.

I worked on writing a better explanation in this comment but it just didn't come out right. I think I understand where I'm failing to explain myself, but I'll have to think for a while about how to express myself more clearly. I'll get back to this asap.

that's fine. i was merely curious, as you've tried explaining it to me in the past, and i guess i'm missing something...

not to jump into the middle of anything, but i think the story from the bible was supposed to be an illustration of his point...

also, robert, i love anna, but there are some things that you just can't debate her about. it's pointless. religion is one, and nukes is obviously another.

one day i will find someone, a leftist preferably, who can openly and honestly debate religion with me. i have yet to find one.

I will try an analogy to make my point.

Football teams do not exist apart from the players that compose the team. If all the players left, there would naturally be no team. In that sense, there is no such thing as the Dallas Cowboys as an entity apart from the managers, coaches, players, etc.

But football players do not win or lose games. Football teams do. The players act corporately. And every player on the team -- even those that do not play in a particular game -- takes part in the success or failure of the team as a whole.

When they hand out Superbowl rings, they don't go to the losing team and say "these three guys on the losing team really did pretty well, so we decided to give them rings too." They are all in it together. Each player wins or loses according to whether his team won or lost.

It's the same thing with a church. Let's suppose my church were to decide to ordain a woman as a pastor. I believe that is unequivocally wrong (but don't want to get into it, it's just an example). I would certainly do everything in my power to prevent it - I'd speak out against it, show people Biblically why it's wrong, etc. But let's say it came right down to it and I was unsuccessful at swaying the church. I'd then have two options, and only two: stay or go. If I stayed, I would be somewhat personally responsible for remaining in a church that had done something I believe God disapproves of. I would bear some of the responsibility. So I would go. This is actually very similar to a real situation I was in, and I had to leave a church over what I considered to be serious matters of doctrine and practice. I had to leave in order to not participate in what I believe to be wrong.

Because groups are simply aggregations of individuals, those individuals must take part in the consequences of the group's actions.

Is that any better? I hope so.

one day i will find someone, a leftist preferably, who can openly and honestly debate religion with me. i have yet to find one.

I have no idea what your religious beliefs may be, but I'm always up for a good religious discussion. Just let me know if you have a particular topic in mind.

I have a good friend named Patrick who sometimes visits this site. He's pretty liberal, but is also generally capable of rational and intelligent debates. He is a liberal Christian so there is some legitimate common ground there. Too bad he won't chime in on anything.

robert, while it's always enlightening debating religion with another christian, i was referring to a non-believer. :)

btw, i grew up luthern, and attend a 'bible church' (has a tiny bit of baptist influence, but not much)

also, i cannot spell for shit.

Well, first thing I would like to point out is call a Wiseman a Wiseman and a fool a fool. You are a fool. This is why!

First historically speaking the men, women, and children that died in the bombing were not fighting. Actually at the time the war with the Japanese was coming to an end (after the battle of midway we started winning). Secondly, I protest at the idiot we hold in office today, that he will bring pain and suffering to this world and our own country, I WILL NOT ACCEPT RESPONCIBILITY, but I would pull the trigger to stop him, if given opportunity and I knew it would not continue by another’s hand. Back to the time frame in debate, it was an atrocity, so was Pearl Harbor, but the target there was military, not cities. Throughout the ages all countries people turn their backs on the atrocities they perform, and look at how glorious they must be. America is no different; we to this day continue atrocities, though not as blatant and obvious as these stated here (Pearl Harbor, the Trail of Tears, etc…). Yet America sure remembers the atrocities that lead to the Boston tea party, something almost insignificant to what we have done to the Indians and others. Recently the Twin Towers, count the people in history, next to Germany and the Inquisition that the Christians so lovingly brought on the rest of the world, America has the highest head count through atrocities. It may possibly be more, I did not count. But how many Christians today believe that witches should be burned at the stake, or that sinners need to be boiled. I only know one group that is open, but I am sure several. Judge not less thee be judged! Hypocrisy is grand is it not?
The war would have ended with far less death, without the bomb, we were not far of the coast of Japan already, with an invasion force being readied when the bombs were dropped. Japan was setup for failure to begin with, as they just got out of a war before entering WW2. The people in America, rounded up any descendants of Japan and other countries as well, and placed them into camps, while not as bad as those in Germany, they came away loosing much of their lives and possessions. Before Japan bombed us, we were trading with Germany, even after the concentration camps were formed, America only cared when they were attacked, yet we claim great pride in the world.
You stake claims on this page that are uneducated and un-researched. My claims are only half researched, and I am certain you will find indiscretions within them, as will I, but obviously I know more about the subject than you apparently do, as you forgot about all those other things.
The reason for bombing as being Pearl Harbor is misleading, it had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, and instead it was to show strength to the world. I do not believe that so many people should die, so we can flex our muscles. I would shoot the president, the pilot, what ever it took to stop such a thing. Less people would have died without it, and why are our people so many times more important than their, the number of people that would have died would have been FAR less without it. What makes us better, because we are Americans? Through away your foolish pride, especially if you do not know what America is, the rest of the world does not place America on as high a pedestal, especially lately, when we have a fool in the presidency that cannot even give a speech without trying to quote “John Wayne”. I hate people that just blab about stuff, through god around as a big toy to make it sound like it just is the way it is, and then ignores reason. The bible states you need to sacrifice you son, how many have done that, read the lines around the quotes as well, you may find that the bible is not referring to dropping a bomb.
I was doing research for a college paper, and came across this; I found it sad, sad that people are so dogmatic they blindly follow a king of fools.
As a side note, you spout of Christian quotes, have you truly read the bible? Most people read the King James Version, if you want proof of the inaccuracy of the bible, read genesis (How many gods were there exactly?) You cannot expect people to back you up blindly, yet that is what people that resort to religion in an ethical debate expect, because they doubt their own ethics and need someone else to show them confidence in their ethics. The world Christ sickens me, not because of what he did, but because every time someone says it, it is in reference to an act that is NOT Christ-like. Christ would have ask forgiveness for the Japanese that bomb Pearl, and take the route with the best outcome, I would guess that would be NOT dropping the bomb, but I will not pretend to know what he would do, just try to act in the best ways I can. I am not Christian, but I know more about Christianity than most Christians that preach online, those that are my friends, are the ones that show traits of what Christ would be like, this is notable. If you want to use Christianity in you words, learn what they mean first, otherwise do not drag a religion full of people into the debate when they do not necessarily follow you ideas.

Err, correction to last statement, in the listing where I stated America's atrocities I list Pearl Harbor, mental slip of sorts. I also want to state I know I will get a response, from people smashing against me, as this page is that of the conservative views, life can be more fun when you open your minds, so any conservatives out there, be free, love, peace, happiness, and such. But not too free, those hippies are kind of strange. The great eastern philosophies show that you must have balance to live to the best. This is very true, for instance, eating, you can eat allot, or you can not eat, or the best answer is eat enough. Even if you accept the bomb to be needed, for what ever reason, why 2? Why not 1, to show a message, that is what it was supposed to be right?

Steve, I attempted to email you at the address you provided but it didn't go through. That's a shame because I wanted to send a private reply containing some things I thought would be better said in such a forum, rather than publicly. I believe that I found your work email address (are you Steve Cook?) but I didn't want to use that, particularly in case I was wrong about it.

Here's the message I tried to send you.

I really hope you will read this in the helpful, calm manner in which it is intended, and I hope my words convey my attitude appropriately. If they don't, please bear with me.

You mention that you are researching the nuclear bombing of Japan for a college paper. From a strictly technical view, having nothing at all to do with your opinions, you really need to work on your writing skills. Your spelling, grammar, writing style, and overall organization skills are unworthy of a college student. You further demonstrate a lack of ability to logically understand and refute arguments.

The spelling and grammar would probably be corrected by a good word processor, but your organization skill cannot. Here are some thoughts of mine that are intended to be constructive criticism; perhaps they will help you with your paper.

First, logically organize your thoughts. Here's a rough outline of the comments you posted. (Note: I use "Steve" and "Robert" instead of pronouns in order to minimize confusion.)

1. Steve disagrees with Robert so Robert is a fool.
   
2. Nuking Japan killed lots of civilians.
   
3. The war would have ended quickly even without nuking Japan.
   
4. Bush's current policies (presumably regarding Iraq) will hurt America and the world.
   
5. Steve refuses to accept responsibility for Bush's policies, and would assassinate Bush if he
   thought it would help.
   
6. Nuking Japan was more of an atrocity than the Pearl Harbor, as Pearl Harbor was a military
   target whereas Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely civilian targets.
   
7. America fails to consider its own atrocities when looking at history and current events.
   
8. Steve also lumps in the Inquisition, since America is responsible for things Spain did.
   
9. Christians are pretty bad folks and would likely reinstitute the Salem witch trials given the opportunity.
   
10. Christians are hypocritical and judgmental.
    
11. World War II would have ended with far fewere casualties if America had gone ahead with a land
    invasion instead of using nuclear weapons to force an immediate surrender.
    
12. Japan was militarily weak, having just finished one war before beginning WWII.
    
13. Americans are bad because we put Japanese in internment camps, which were tantamount to the
    Nazi death camps.
    
14. America was hypocritical because we traded with Germany during the beginning of WWII, and only actively opposed the Axis powers once we were directly attacked.
    
15. Robert's claims are both uneducated and not researched at all, whereas Steve has at least
    halfway researched his claims. Steve is clearly Robert's mental superior in this area, as Steve
    mentions many things Robert does not. This is clearly because Robert does not know of the things
    Steve mentions.
    
16. America's true intention in bombing Pearl Harbor was to demonstrate military might, not to
    quickly win the war or to avenge Pearl Harbor.
    
17. It is wrong to use a terrible weapon such as a nuclear bomb simply to demonstrate military
    supremacy. Steve again threatens to assassinate the President or anyone else he needed to in
    order to prevent any use of a nuclear weapon.
    
18. A land invasion would have cost fewer total lives than using nuclear weapons did.
    
19. When making military decisions, the lives of American soldiers should be given no more
    consideration than the lives of the soldiers and citizens of an enemy country.
    
20. Anyone who disagrees with this analysis is full of "foolish pride". After all, other
    countries don't consider the lives of American citizens or soldiers to be that important.
    
21. Bush is an idiot who likes to quote John Wayne a lot. His policies are hurting America's
    reputation in the world.
    
22. Christians are illogical hypocrites, or at least Robert is. None of the scriptures Robert
    used refer to dropping nuclear weapons.
    
23. The Bible also records God calling on Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, so it must be ignored. The
    other option is that all Christians must kill their firstborn sons.
    
24. Anyone who supports Bush (or perhaps anyone who support the nuking of Japan at the end of
    WWII) is "blindly [following] a king of fools".
    

And here's an outline of the "side note":

1. Since Steve does not understand or like the language used in Genesis to refer to God, the entire Bible (particularly the despised King James Version) is inaccurate.
   
2. It is unreasonable to use religious texts authoritatively in an ethical debate.
   
3. Religious people only use religious texts in this manner because they doubt their own sense of
   ethics.
   
4. Every single time anyone ever refers to Christ, it is done in an attempt to justify something that Christ would have opposed.
   
5. Christ would have opposed nuking Japan, and would ask the Japanese for forgiveness. Christ
   would have supported a land invasion instead.
   
6. Steve is not a Christian but knows more about Christianity than most Christians. Only Steve's
   friends and people who do things Steve agrees with are truly representative of Christ.
   
7. Appealing to a religious text, and using it to support a position Steve does not support,
   means that one does not actually understand the text used.
   
8. Appealing to a religious text in a debate is equivalent to claiming the support of all other
   adherents of the religion to which such text belongs.
   

Outlined this way, I'm sure you can see lots of opportunity for improvement. For instance, you could safely drop the ad hominem attacks against me, Bush, and supporters of war on Iraq and the larger war on terrorism. In fact, the entire discussion about Iraq is entirely irrelevant to your position and ought to be dropped. Focus on one topic.

Next, you could pull related statements and ideas together. A sample outline demonstrating this follows:

1. Nuking Japan was unnecessary
  a. Japan was militarily weak and close to collapse.
  b. A land invasion would have been successful.
2. Nuking Japan was inhumane
  a. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not important military targets
3. Nuking Japan was immoral
  a. A land invasion would have cost fewer total lives
    (1) "Total lives lost" is the correct method to calculate moral and military decisions
    (2) The lives of American and allied soldiers should not be weighted heavier by American military and political leaders than the lives of enemy soldiers and civilians.
  b. America took advantage of the situation with Japan simply to show America's military might
  c. America's involvement in World War II was hypocritical
    (1) America's stated purpose for going to war was to stop or avenge the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Axis powers - namely, the slaughter of Jews and the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
    (2) America turned a blind eye to these sorts of abuses early in the war, and profitted from its cozy political and economic relationship to the Axis powers during that time.
    (3) Waiting until America was directly attacked to use military force was hypocritical
  d. America's use of nuclear weapons on Japan was hypocritical
    (1) The stated reason for nuking Japan was to avenge Pearl Harbor, Bataan, etc.
    (2) America has committed many human rights abuses that are roughly equivalent to, or even worse than, the actions we were suppoedly avenging. This includes the treatment of American Indians in the 1800s.
    (3) Only a morally pure nation could morally retaliate for being attacked. An analogy might be that if a man has EVER started a fight in his entire life, it would be wrong for him to later defend himself if another man attacked him.

Only if all three of your points are validly proven can you make your conclusion. For instance, if it was necessary to nuke Japan to accomplish a military victory safeguarding America, then it is not particularly relevant how one perceives the morals of it. Only once it has been established that America had several viable military options, can those options be considered.

An analogy might be helpful: Let's say some guy is attacking me and wants to kill me. Let's say that I could either shoot him, beat him up, or run away. Obviously I'd need to weigh which of those decisions was the most moral, and choose accordingly. But if he has me trapped in a corner and is raising a knife to stab me, then just about the only option I'd have would be to shoot him. In that case, there's no real question what to do.

You may or may not be able to establish your first point. It is difficult to establish "what if" scenarios. You might consider case studies of other land invasions, especially considering the relevant characteristics of Japan (e.g., what is mostly urban or mostly rural? how populated was it? what was the terrain like?) Generally, though, you'll have to rely on the opinions of military experts familiar with the situation.

Once you demonstrate that America had other militarily viable options to deal with Japan, you'll need to demonstrate that your moral calculations are correct. In other words, you need to show BOTH that (1) A land war would have killed fewer total people AND (2) "Total lives lost" is the correct criteria to use. I suspect you'll have a hard case with this. American people, including military and political leaders, quite naturally value American lives over enemy lives. Similarly, law abiding citizens value the lives of police officers over the lives of criminals, which is why we mourn for murdered officers but not for criminals killed in shootouts with police. The value of a human life is, for most people anyway, affected by the actions of that human. The lives of the guilty are generally considered to be worth less than the lives of innocent victims.

You'll also have a really tough time proving that America's nuking of Japan was hypocritical. Your logic there is quite difficult to follow. It depends on premises which are not true (that we nuked Japan to avenge Pear Harbor) and leads to ridiculous conclusions (that only a totally non-agressive nation could ever retaliate for an attack).

As far as your diatribe against Christianity, I can only say a handful of things. First, I appealed to the Bible (as well as using many analogies) to demonstrate that individuals are culpable for the actions of organizations (such as a nation) that they belong to, even if that individual did not participate in those actions. Japanese citizens and soldiers were responsible for the actions of their government. Football players get credit for games their teams win, even if a given individual player had no role (or no significant role) in those victories.

The Bible does not explicitly address the use of nuclear weapons, or speak much to military strategies, and I did attempt to extrapolate instructions of that nature from it.

Second, I appeal to the Bible to settle moral questions because I have chosen to consider the Bible authoritative on those questions. It is entirely due to my lack of confidence in my ability to invent a valid system of morals. I do expect that people who SAY they believe the Bible would treat it as authoritative. If the Bible clearly established a given position, then I expect those sorts of people to bring their beliefs in line with the Bible, as I try to.

I am quite aware that using the Bible to settle moral questions is ineffective for those who reject the Bible.

Third, you and your friends do not have a monopoly on the knowledge of Christ. Christ was a multifaceted Man - at one time demonstrating incredible mercy, and at another time using harsh invectives against His opponents. At one time, He is proclaiming "Suffer the little children to come unto Me", and at another time He is using a whip to drive the moneychangers from the temple and kicking over big heavy tables. He voluntarily and humbly went to the cross and suffered, yet a few hours earlier He instructed His followers to arm themselves for self defense in future missionary activities.

Sometimes valid Christian teachings will not line up with your ideas of what Christ was like. The only way to settle such questions is to consult the Bible. Instead, you have apparently come up with a fictional construct named "Jesus" who bears little semblance to the historical Christ, and imbued your fictional Jesus with a set of morals and beliefs to your liking. You then place this imaginary construct in situations that the historical Christ was never in, and ask your fictional Jesus questions that the real Jesus didn't answer. And you treat your fictional Jesus's answers as authoritative and binding on Christians! This is not a valid means of understanding a religion's teachings.

If I want to know what Islam teaches, I read the Koran. I do not take a few snippets of what I've heard of Mohammed, construct an imaginary man from these snippets, and guess at what he'd say. But this is precisely what you are doing with Christianity, and it is thoroughly dishonest.

My post regarding the attack on Japan was part of an ongoing debate that began at another site, and was not intended as a canonical dissertation forever settling the issue. You're taking my post out of that context and consequently misunderstanding or misrepresenting me.

Even if you accept the bomb to be needed, for what ever reason, why 2? Why not 1, to show a message, that is what it was supposed to be right?

I do not believe that nuclear weapons were ever intended to "show a message". They were, and are, military weapons that are used to kill people. Lots of people. Very quickly.

The only "message" a nuclear bomb sends is "surrender now, or you will all die".

And indeed that was the message they were intended to send in August of 1945. We warned Japan that if they did not surrender, we'd use a new weapon on them. We gave them 24 hours. They did not surrender, so we nuked Hiroshima and gave them another 48 hours. We also began an inense propaganda campaign in Japan to convince the Japanese to surrender. This progaganda included photographs and descriptions of the bombing of Hiroshima. 48 hours passed, and Japan would not surrender. So we nuked Nagasaki and gave them another 48 hours. This time, they surrendered.

That's why we used 2. The point was to bring about an end to the war. One didn't cut it, two did. There are stories that we were preparing to drop a third bomb as well, if the second one didn't convince them.

You've started from a false pretense (the use of nukes was simply a show of strenght) and come to a wrong conclusion. If you realize that the point of nukes was to bring about Japan's surrender, then the reasoning behind using 2 bombs is clear - they didn't surrender after only 1.