The Quiet American - Spoiler

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Ned
but I can hardly believe he would condone attrocities against civilians for any reason

In which corner of lala-land are you living?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
he had authorized the use of nuclear weapons twice in the war against Japan and again in the war in Korea, but I can hardly believe he would condone attrocities against civilians for any reason.

So killing 150,000+ civilians with A-bombs isn't an atrocity?

[MichaeltheGreat]

No, considering the alternatives.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
No, considering the alternatives.

I'm sure those who orchestrated the bombing depicted in the film could rationalize their act with the same sentence.

Not getting a debate into whether the bomb was necessary or not to end the war, deliberately killing civilians in order to bring a war to a favorable conclusion is still an atrocity.

[MikeH]

Of course. Every country was guilty of atrocities in that war. That was certainly one of them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I'm sure those who orchestrated the bombing depicted in the film could rationalize their act with the same sentence.

I'm sure anybody can rationalize anything. The huge difference is that one was to start a war (or at least increase support for it), while the other was to end a war.

Not getting a debate into whether the bomb was necessary or not to end the war, deliberately killing civilians in order to bring a war to a favorable conclusion is still an atrocity.

"Deliberate" also has to consider available means. If we had a nice clean technology to limit targeting to military targets, and chose not to use it, that's a different case than simply having no means available to target differentially.

Dresden was an atrocity because it was well known that there was nothing of military value - the sole intent was to kill and terrorize civilians. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had significant military targets spread through the cities, and the targeting centered on those locations, not the highest concentration of civilians.

[MikeH]

So by that logic if Saddam had somehow managed to find a nuke and, in self defence, nuked the advancing US forces that wouldn't be an atrocity.

[Ned]

Listen, I don't doubt that if "our" man did commit attrociities, we would attempt to blame the communists. I simply do not accept that we deliberately killed people in order to do this.

That is the leap that is hard to accept.

I also do no buy our involvement in attrocities commited by dictators we may have helped to power. All that shows is that in a war, one can sometime ally with the devil. We certainly did that in WWII. But being an ally in the same war does not make us responsible for everything they do - this is a common accusation I see here from Che, for example.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Dresden was an atrocity because it was well known that there was nothing of military value - the sole intent was to kill and terrorize civilians.

Total war, those civilians were paying taxes and generating GNP. The intent was to lower production by
driving the people out of the cities," look what happened
to Dresden, Coming to your city next"

Dresden was not a atrocity, It was the Germans reaping
the horrors that they had sown.

[MikeH]

Are you saying that when one side commits an attrocity it's perfectly morally OK for the other side to do exactly the same back to them?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I'm sure anybody can rationalize anything. The huge difference is that one was to start a war (or at least increase support for it), while the other was to end a war.

If they can rationalize that starting the war would be for the ultimate good (independence from French colonial rule), then the difference becomes pretty fuzzy.

"Deliberate" also has to consider available means. If we had a nice clean technology to limit targeting to military targets, and chose not to use it, that's a different case than simply having no means available to target differentially.

This is assuming the purpose of dropping the bombs was to hit the military targets. That was clearly not the case, as they could have conducted normal bombing runs on the specific targets. Sure, that would have jeapordized the American pilots more, but it would have minimized civilian casualties. The purpose was to show Japan (and the USSR) that we had this incredibly massive weapon and weren't afraid to use it, even when it hit civilian targets. That was terrorizing the populace into submission.

Dresden was an atrocity because it was well known that there was nothing of military value - the sole intent was to kill and terrorize civilians. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had significant military targets spread through the cities, and the targeting centered on those locations, not the highest concentration of civilians.

Well, the point still stands, since America had clearly had a precedent of authorizing atrocities, whether it be Dresden or Tokyo.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ozz


Total war, those civilians were paying taxes and generating GNP. The intent was to lower production by
driving the people out of the cities," look what happened
to Dresden, Coming to your city next"

Dresden was not a atrocity, It was the Germans reaping
the horrors that they had sown.

We've already had this inane discussion, and once again... Dresden was bombed when the war was already over, everyone knew that. It was loaded with refugees. It wasn't contributing to anything. Germany no longer had a GNP at this point.

And there is no such thing as collective guilt. The children of Dresden had sown nothing.

Your "total war" nonsense basically justifies anything the Nazis ever did in their own quest for dominating Europe. It justifies every atrocity ever committed during war. It's a ridiculous and immoral line of reasoning.

[Ned]

Boris, I agree with your statement on Dresden. There was no excuse and that was terrorism, pure and simple.

Truman was not yet president, though. So we cannot blame Dresden on him. The question is, was he responsible for a CIA terror campaign in IndoChina, which is the theme of this movie.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
The question is, was he responsible for a CIA terror campaign in IndoChina, which is the theme of this movie.

As MtG pointed out, he didn't have to be responsible for it in order for it to have happened. The CIA undoubtedly has done a lot of things without the sitting POTUS knowing.

If the President had simply said we should support The, he wasn't necessarily in on how the CIA chose to do so.

[MikeH]

Who cares, it's only a film. Was there really a conspiracy to kill JFK? Did the US really steal the Enigma machine from U571?

Hollywood, and writers are always changing stories to make them more exciting or dramatic.