"Freedom" thread or something

Eh nothing personal really jammun, just wanted to post about that atrocity and you made a convenient tie in.
I used you for my political gain.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: jammun wrote: But back to what I was thinking. If the Iraqis (Sunnis vs. Shiites) kill each other, it's business as usual. If the Iraqis and the Iranians kills each other, it's business as usual. If the Hutus and the Tutsis engage in genocide, it's business as usual. To use a Pentagon phrase, do you think there is no "collateral damage" in these things? If the U.S. gets involved, well that's another story. Any collateral damage is "our" fault.  I live in Washington (the state). A guy such as myself can take a day or two trip, visit the forts, some which have now-neutered WWII era guns still in place. There was a concern that Japan would, as they say, take it to the mainland. It's a fascinating drive through history to see those emplacements and imagine the poor unfortunates who manned those installations. I do not know if the concentration camps we sent our Asian citizens to during that time are still in place. I need to check that out. They too were civilian casualties. Ummm yeah. Because we're not culpable for the actions of others, but we are held morally responsible for the military which kills in our name. The consequences of that murder comes back to us. Our complacency condones these actions. What kind of an argument are you trying to make here?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: jammun wrote: My dad was as innocent as they come, a simple school teacher who was drafted into the army. You might call him a civilian. I'm not indifferent, but the last time I checked we did not attack Japan in the first place. That we chose to end that conflict in the way we did can and will be debated forever.  You know, and please do not take this as me being some high-minded person, I recently decided, after all these years, to read Tolstoy's War and Peace. He speaks of various villages that just happened to physically be in the way of competing armies. Innocent people's lives destroyed just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is the way of war. And yes, eventually there's gonna be someone go batsh*t crazy and start slaughtering everyone in site.  There's an excellent book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_Drina, that speaks far more eloquently on these subjects than I'll ever be capable of doing. I highly recommend it. You're making no sense. Were the people who tortured your father and dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor the same people wiped out by the bomb? You're making a serious fallacy error and associating every Japanese individual with the actions of Japan's government. You can call your father a civilian, but he was a member of the armed forces. That doesn't make his torture right, but his being tortured does not justify reducing cities of the innocent to ash. It's the way of war? That's the basis of your morality? All actions in war receive carte blanche? Maybe things happen like this because people lack the sight to imagine actually changing anything.

jammun wrote: My dad was as innocent as they come, a simple school teacher who was drafted into the army. You might call him a civilian. I'm not indifferent, but the last time I checked we did not attack Japan in the first place. That we chose to end that conflict in the way we did can and will be debated forever.  You know, and please do not take this as me being some high-minded person, I recently decided, after all these years, to read Tolstoy's War and Peace. He speaks of various villages that just happened to physically be in the way of competing armies. Innocent people's lives destroyed just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is the way of war. And yes, eventually there's gonna be someone go batsh*t crazy and start slaughtering everyone in site.  There's an excellent book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_Drina, that speaks far more eloquently on these subjects than I'll ever be capable of doing. I highly recommend it.

You're making no sense. Were the people who tortured your father and dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor the same people wiped out by the bomb? You're making a serious fallacy error and associating every Japanese individual with the actions of Japan's government. You can call your father a civilian, but he was a member of the armed forces. That doesn't make his torture right, but his being tortured does not justify reducing cities of the innocent to ash.

It's the way of war? That's the basis of your morality? All actions in war receive carte blanche? Maybe things happen like this because people lack the sight to imagine actually changing anything.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: jammun wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I'm just saying that statement's like Jammun's have no placed in civilized society.  Please clarify... Because a group of people put your dad through horrific circumstances, you're indifferent to the murder of a group of completely innocent people simply because they occupied the same geographical area and shared the same skin color. You basically just justified the 9/11 attacks.

"war is a bitch" doesn't quite sum it up though. That implies "yeah well this sucks" not this kind of abuse:


http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/11/world/asia/afghanistan-us-service-member/index.html

Because a solider leaving base to just go out and kill 16 random civilians (and injuring 5 more) is a real "bitch" isn't it?

jammun wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I'm just saying that statement's like Jammun's have no placed in civilized society.  Please clarify...

Because a group of people put your dad through horrific circumstances, you're indifferent to the murder of a group of completely innocent people simply because they occupied the same geographical area and shared the same skin color. You basically just justified the 9/11 attacks.

The T wrote: ^No. War can be fought only with resources. An invasion and bombardment of Honshu would've destroyed Japanese ability to wage war. Even with their kamikazes and their honour, the military would've collapsed (it was nearly there anyway). Yes, maybe even civilians would've decided to commit suicide for their Emperor but it has been shown that the Emperor himself was not really eager to continue the bloodshed. The more nationalistic side of his military wanted to continue fighting but at this point the war was lost.

Another tragic thing is that it appears Japan's initial request of conditional surrender to keep the Emperor, which was refused just before the bombing, ended up being allowed afterward.   Had this decision been more thought through, it may have avoided the use of Fat Man/Little Boy entirely.   Terrible.

^No. War can be fought only with resources. An invasion and bombardment of Honshu would've destroyed Japanese ability to wage war. Even with their kamikazes and their honour, the military would've collapsed (it was nearly there anyway). Yes, maybe even civilians would've decided to commit suicide for their Emperor but it has been shown that the Emperor himself was not really eager to continue the bloodshed. The more nationalistic side of his military wanted to continue fighting but at this point the war was lost.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: manofmystery wrote: I can't help but be soft on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as I likely wouldn't be here today, if they hadn't been dropped, as my grandfather would have been sent to storm the Japanese mainland.  I think we all know how that would have gone. Intelligence has suggested that a mainland assault was more feasible than the scare numbers suggested and that the Japanese could have been forced into surrender without boots on the ground.