plumage wrote:

harhol wrote:

Nanking has nothing to do with nukes. Both were unforgivable atrocities. The fact that the Japanese did X, Y and Z does not change the fact that the United States committed mass murder of civilians.

Yep, sure did. Because it's called war.

This is well said.  It's called war.  It is not some fight sanctioned by the Marquis of Queensberry.

And the idea of a "limited war" implies without any argument that at least one side is going to accept a "limited defeat".  That is to say, they are going to give up before exhausting every method at their disposal to not lose.

When countries can accept, universally, "limited defeat", then we can have "limited war".  Until such time, war is best avoided, because it is, by its very nature, unlimited.  To argue that one side or the other went too far in a contest that by its nature is unlimited is silly.  It's akin to saying, "No fair; you won!"

Last edited by Wally (2009 May 30, 11:19 pm)

drivers99, there was no question that Japan was losing/had already lost the war.  But the decision to bomb Hiroshima was reached after the invasion of Okinawa, and an analysis of the losses on both sides of that battle.  Let me quote from wikipedia: "the Japanese lost over 100,000 troops, and the Allies (mostly United States) suffered more than 50,000 casualties, with over 12,000 killed in action. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, wounded or attempted suicide. Approximately one-fourth of the civilian population died due to the invasion."  Had the invasion of the main islands been carried out, the losses on both sides of that battle (military and civilian) would probably have outnumbered the Holocaust, Nanjing, and the Russian front combined. Japan, as we know it today, would not exist. Believe it or not, the use of nuclear weapons was viewed as the more humane option if it would force an early end to the war.

War is an evil thing, and in my opinion no action in war can be considered morally righteous.  But sometimes the alternatives (if any) are even worse.

Last edited by mafried (2009 May 31, 12:12 am)

My understanding as well, drivers, is that that is true. They did put up a brave front. Shame about leaders, because their "god" emperor really should've surrendered far sooner and spared his people. I guess he assumed Japan would be no more. Last I checked, they still spoke Japanese. Wonder how that worked, since America is so completely imperial and whatnot and the country was ours for the taking.

masa, I'll consider as you said that you are inebriated. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant the (insert nation's people) *of the day* probably weren't that upset to see Japan defeated by nuke or whatever. What their survivors' grandchildren think seems hardly relevant. None of them were murdered/tortured/raped, and many if not most probably have been told very little of what did happen. Because people who are systematically murdered/tortured/raped aren't always so keen on talking about it. And I mean real torture, not being forced to listen to loud music for days.

I wish we'd developed the bomb much sooner. A nuke over, say, Frankfurt (at random) much earlier in the war would've saved many countries thousands if not millions of lives (when considering the concentration camps), civilian and military. And probably would've saved many German civilian lives in other cities that were instead leveled more slowly by conventional bombs. Ditto if it had happened in Japan much earlier. Nukes, I believe, have saved more lives than we can possibly imagine in the past 60 years through staving off major conflicts that would've otherwise ensued. They may yet prove to be our undoing, but for now I support their having been used when they were.

I'm not for nukes for any reason, even most. But when two nations decide they are superior races and split the world map up to conquer it *all*, committing horrible atrocities along the way....

Last edited by plumage (2009 May 31, 12:23 am)

masaman wrote:

kazelee wrote:

Read a little more about that era. All sides have something to be ashamed of. What country has made a good decision in the time of war?

Did I ever say Japan made a good decision? Why do you think I should read a little more about that era? I'm not angry or anything but I'm just curious.

You use the word humane when talking about a war that was well... shit... Neither side was humane. All side are guilty of inhumane, disgusting and atrocious acts. There is no... "well this side was worse," because it all was shit. It was a shitty stupid pointless war (like most wars are).

harhol wrote:

Nanking has nothing to do with nukes. Both were unforgivable atrocities. The fact that the Japanese did X, Y and Z does not change the fact that the United States committed mass murder of civilians.

No one has said that anything changes any fact. That's what makes this thread pointless. It's not a history lesson. It's a one-way trip to the blame game.

You wanna know another time the US committed mass murder of civilians in history....

SLAVERY! Wait, that wasn't just the US was it?

How productive is this... really?

Last edited by kazelee (2009 May 31, 12:33 am)

plumage wrote:

I wouldn't say it was "pointless." Japan had a point: domination of about half the world and all the power/wealth/natural resources/etc..

I know people like you, and I know it's pointless to talk to people like you. But I don't know why you want to learn Japanese. I mean, it's some racist gook's language. Why? Are you forced to learn it in a military?

masaman wrote:

plumage wrote:

I wouldn't say it was "pointless." Japan had a point: domination of about half the world and all the power/wealth/natural resources/etc..

I know people like you, and I know it's pointless to talk to people like you. But I don't know why you want to learn Japanese. I mean, it's some racist gook's language. Why? Are you forced to learn it in a military?

Come on now. I hope that's a joke. Please say that's a joke.

kazelee wrote:

masaman wrote:

plumage wrote:

I wouldn't say it was "pointless." Japan had a point: domination of about half the world and all the power/wealth/natural resources/etc..

I know people like you, and I know it's pointless to talk to people like you. But I don't know why you want to learn Japanese. I mean, it's some racist gook's language. Why? Are you forced to learn it in a military?

Come on now. I hope that's a joke. Please say that's a joke.

My grandfather lived in Tokyo in 1945. He lost the sight of his right eye as a child and so he couldn't shoot a gun. He was a civilian. Let me just tell you that he've seem a lot with his one eye. Now there may be some western guys whose grandfathers were tortured to death, so I wouldn't bitch about it. But again, please tell me. I'm just curious. Why would you want to learn some racist gook's language? I'm puzzled.

Last edited by masaman (2009 May 31, 1:30 am)

masaman wrote:

kazelee wrote:

masaman wrote:

I know people like you, and I know it's pointless to talk to people like you. But I don't know why you want to learn Japanese. I mean, it's some racist gook's language. Why? Are you forced to learn it in a military?

Come on now. I hope that's a joke. Please say that's a joke.

My grandfather lived in Tokyo in 1945. He was half blind and he was a civilian. Let me just tell you that He've seem a lot. Now there may be some western guys whose grandfathers were tortured to death, so I wouldn't bitch about it. But again, please tell me. I'm just curious. Why would you want to learn some racist gook's language? I'm puzzled.

You are speaking a language that's spoken by some of the most racist human being on this planet man. It's called English. Ignorance isn't limited to one specific area and you know this. Just curious though, why are you taking this tone? I don't know plumage personally, but I don't think he/she considers Japanese a racist gooks language.

I think you are letting this thread get to you a bit too much. This is about the time where I'd suggest a warm glass of milk.

Last edited by kazelee (2009 May 31, 1:20 am)

If the trade-off was between having a "conditional" surrender, or the death of hundreds and thousands in a terrifying act of technological mass murder, I think any person with a shred of compassion would choose the former. Thanks to those on here who've opened my eyes and exposed that lie that Japan would never surrender before the bombs for what it is - a lie.

Last edited by vinniram (2009 May 31, 1:22 am)

drivers99 wrote:

> The difference between "that" and heroism is "perspective."

I don't really know what you're saying but this whole thread is going down the tubes anyway.  I mean, what the hell.  One person points out the FACT that Japan was an aggressor, which attacked the US in an effort to remove any remaining resistance to their ability to colonize SE Asia in order to gain natural resources, and all of a sudden masaman is putting the word "gooks" in peoples' mouths?  What the hell?  That is low.

What the hell? Each time I hit the quote button on one of your posts it changes drastically, lol. I speaking of the word *cute puppies* that you edited out of your last post. It was something like ..."it was an act of "cute puppies*," LOL.

vinniram wrote:

If the trade-off was between having a "conditional" surrender, or the death of hundreds and thousands in a terrifying act of technological mass murder, I think any person with a shred of compassion would choose the former. Thanks to those on here who've opened my eyes and exposed that lie that Japan would never surrender before the bombs for what it is - a lie.

Was it? I've seen arguments to support both opinions. That's what the are... opinions. The only one's who will ever really know are the one's who were in charge back then.

Last edited by kazelee (2009 May 31, 1:26 am)

Masa, I probably will have moved on from this thread after going to sleep. Like I said at the top of the thread, I am a man of the present. Japan is what it is, not what it was, and I love what I've experienced of it. America is what it is, not what it was. My family are of Mexican descent, and there are tons of grudges held by some Mexicans. I hold none of them. I am a person in the year 2009, and I don't judge nations or men for actions of past regimes or ancestors. This allows me to judge folks without bitterness for imagined disadvantages I might be able to scare up and play victim by. It allows me to enjoy Japanese culture and language without thinking about what the old folk did or thought they were doing or whatever. Ditto Germany, which I've visited many times.

I wish others would drop the past and live for today and tomorrow and treat each other as if we weren't the ones who committed the evils of the past. Because we didn't, and dealing with present strife is hard enough without dredging up that past.

plumage wrote:

I wish others would drop the past and live for today and tomorrow and treat each other as if we weren't the ones who committed the evils of the past. Because we didn't, and dealing with present strife is hard enough without dredging up that past.

There is a difference between forgiving and forgetting. Everyone should forgive, no one should forget.