Thread: Interesting
View Single Post
Unread 12-09-2002, 11:45 AM   #16
Arcturius
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 294
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by airspirit
The Japanese people that got the bomb dropped on them got what Japan was asking for.
Translation:While Japan was under the rule of an Empire (dictatorship), and the people of Japan had no control over their government, you still think we were absolutely justified on _all_ levels to blow up civilians.
Application:You harass my wife in public, whistle, catcall, make obscene gestures, etc. That's against the rules of courtesy and decency, so by your reasoning, I am absolutely justified on _all_ levels to come beat your dog, and announce that I could easily do the same to you.

Quote:
We saved Japanese lives by killing them. We saved American lives by killing them. It is not a crime against humanity, it is strictly a way of ending a war.
It was an absolutely efficient way to end a war, since it worked. If the Japanese had called our bluff...that's a very different story.
But, killing civilians indiscriminantly is still a crime against humanity, and those killed absolutely deserve recognition.

An abortion is an efficient way to ensure that a person doesn't have to take on the responsibility of a child they are not ready for. It can potentially save a lot of grief on all involved (fetus included, depending on how inadequate the parents would be). That doesn't necessarily make it right, and if the fetus (tangent debate: does a fetus have consciousness?) could choose, would it choose death?
Note: I am pro-choice, btw.

Immanuel Kant would say that the bombing was the wrong choice, on a moral level--it fails all three parts of the Categorical Imperative. First, it is not reversible: if Japan had nuclear weapons, we sure as hell wouldn't want them dropped on our civilians under any circumstances, even if it meant the war would end earlier, with less casualties overall. Think over that for a minute, if you keep an open mind, I think you might agree. Secondly, there was no respect for Japanese life--this is obvious because the bomb killed indiscriminately men, women, children, the elderly--the target was chosen to inflict the maximum casualties of all types (machinery/buildings obviously included). Finally, we had no duty to kill men, women, and children. (Note: Kant's definition of duty probably differs than yours, so don't throw a fit until you read up on it.) We had a duty to protect ourselves, but that only extended to those attacking us; if a person did not attack us, then they were innocent, and should have been treated as such.

*edit*: hedonist/egoist typo
You seem to be more of a egoist: "Hey it worked. It didn't cause us undue harm, and likely saved us some. So what if we killed 100,000 Japanese. F*ck em. They were better off in the long run." You neglect to consider that we saved lots of soldiers by killing lots of civilians. Sure some civilians die in war, it happens. But, would you trade your life so someone on the front lines could live? Would you execute your mother so Private Nelson's mom doesn't get that dreaded letter? Your nephew? How about Private Nelson's mom, so he can come home and enjoy the rest of his life?

Quote:
The Japanese people, if we had landed over a million troops on their beaches, would have fought to the last man to repel invasion. They had made that clear to us.

The Japanese people were all ready to fight. They were all required to be armed and ready. Men, Women, even some older children were all geared up ready to kill American troops, should we ever had landed.
Yeah, maybe. But at least then it would have been their choice. _Then_ they would have deserved it. Oh, and BTW: they kinda f*cked our naval power in that bit of water; I'm not so sure we could send any reasonable number of men their way quickly.

Quote:
The reality of the situation was that if we had invaded, it would have been millions of Japanese people, instead of a couple of hundred thousand. Can you imagine a bunch of ragtag militia troops with old swords and whatever other weapons they could scrounge up rushing a group of trained soldiers? We would have littered every Japanese island with the dead, including women and children, before they would have given up.

Again, MAYBE. See above.

Quote:
It wasn't until we bombed their cities and convinced them that we had many more bombs ready to drop on them (which was a complete deception), that they were ready to give up. The specter of the entirety of Japan turning into one large, charred graveyard was what prompted their leaders (a dictatorship under the guise of an empire) to give up.

But, did we need to bomb civilians? Maybe not. We'll never know because it was never tried.

Quote:
The Japanese people should thank us that we ended the war as we did. The only regret that the US should have is for the infants that died in those blasts, because every man woman and child that was old enough to carry a weapon would have been mobilized as combatants anyway had we invaded.

There sure as hell is no way they are going to thank the US, and they certainly should not. We killed civilians, and more than just infants were innocent. Even if Grandma had a gun, she would probably be disarmed and on her way out as a prisoner before she could even think of firing. Even quicker if she only had a rusty sword or a broomstick, or a harsh voice speaking a language our soldiers didn't understand.

Quote:
In the end, the US did the right, proper, and HUMANE thing by ending the war as they did.

Well, we did kill fewer people than an outright military conflict would have. But they were CIVILIANS. Again, see above.

Quote:
The sad reality of today is that the Liberal Tratorious(sic) Left is trying to portray what we did as cruel (my favorite is the lie that "Japan was about to surrender anyway," which is why they were still firing upon our ships (civilian and otherwise) and its troops were still firing upon ours wherever they were left), inhumane (as if killing millions rather than thousands is any more humane), or an act of terrorism. I'm sorry, but terrorism is an act by a radical group trying to force action through random destruction of lives and properties, attempting to coerce governments or groups of people to perform acts or provide compensation that would benefit that group. There is usually nothing that compels these people to do what they do except ideology. The weeping that they have for the poor dead Japanese of old is an excuse for tearing down our military machine in the name of American socialism (they would also tax 100% of your income and redistribute it as they see fit, if they had their way, most of it going oversees to the poor of countries who allow themselves to be robbed by their governments, if not to the governments themselves).

cybrsamurai never called the bombing an act of terrorism, he commented that Kyle's justification paralleled that of a terrorist. Did he promote the dismantling of our armed forces? I didn't see it. In fact, did he promote any strictly left-wing idea? Not unless compassion is a liberal idea.
The killing of that many civilians was cruel, no matter how you look at it. Was it the least cruel option? From certain points of view (short term viewpoint of the soldiers who lived). From all points of view? Certainly not, recall Private Nelson's dead mother, above. Substitute names as necessary.
Even if they were attacking our civilian ships, were we justified into sinking to that level and killing civilians? Of course not.

Quote:
Ending a war isn't terrorism. Do any of you know that the cities that were bombed were industrial centers geared toward the Japanese war machine? Do any of you care? To call a wartime action terrorism, especially when it was an act guaranteed to end the war with the minimum amount of death on the enemy, is not terrorism.

He never said it was terrorism, and we took out much more than the Japanse industrial centers. And again, the outcome was not guaranteed.

Quote:
If anything, blowing them to kingdom come was an act of compassion, and it was a decision that should be praised even today.

It was a good move _in_hind_sight_. Yet again, consequences are never certain. That is why the idea of deontology even exists.

Quote:
The difference between Pearl Harbor and the bombings of those cities was that in Pearl Harbor we were not at war, and during the bombing of those cities, we were.
If they had declared war at a point prior to the Hawaii attack, we would have nothing to moan about, because it was a valid military target. Attacking it without warning like they did, though, flies in the face of every rule of war (there actually are rules, for the countries that obey them) that every nation holds dear.

A valid point, but civilians are still not valid military targets, so we were not justified in killing them, despite what Japan did to us. Is revenge ever a valid justification?

Quote:
Think about this next time you weep for the Japanese that died those days. They were participants in one of the most merciful acts the US has ever committed.

If you still don't get it, join the military for a stint and you'll get a full understanding of reality, if you ever have the pleasure of being in enemy fire.
Think outside the box before you begin to speak. Look at things from another point of view, and try to examine them objectively.
Mercy is the act of _not_ causing harm to others, when you could. The US had other options, and they were not explored. Regardless of what Japan did to us, and what many think they deserved, the killing of 100,000 Japanese was not merciful, it was simply a calculated decision to minimize US troop loss.
Also, how well do _you_ think when you are running on adrenaline, and you have to rely on instincts? How about a situation that is not life-and-death, but when some of your other basic instincts take over, i.e. the instincts in your pants (figuratively)?

I would also object to the perception of reality gained by being in the military, but that is much more of an opinion, and I think we've all had our fill of that by this point.

Last edited by Arcturius; 12-09-2002 at 12:16 PM.
Arcturius is offline   Reply With Quote