Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 05-06-2011, 09:04 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Economically speaking yes, but we also have to factor in that there are a lot of Japanese people who do truly hate America because of the bombs. We also didn't count the Japanese in American and Canada, who were placed in concentration camps. There's a lot of justified hate amongst the Japanese against US, economic boom or not.

Just look at it this way: Americans hate Osama for WTC, which killed ~3000 people. America easily did way more damage than that in Japan with two nuclear bombs, leaving those places uninhabitable for better or worse. That's a lot more dead people. I can't see how you can justify that the people in America can hate Osama while simultaneously state that Japan cannot do the same thing, when the situation in Japan was far worse off emotionally.

Seriously, if economics is what you think that matters, why should Osama hate America? America's been his economic benefactor for how many years?
The difference is the order of aggression. Japan attacked America first, thus justifying retaliation. Osama Bin Ladin attacked America first, thus justifying retaliation. So, if you start a war against a nonaggressor and then lose it, it's not justified to hate the opposition if their methods were not particularly more extreme than yours (Had Japan had the capability they certainly would have done the same to the US).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
There's no such thing as righteous in war. America's "righteous" in it that they won the war and nothing else. Seriously, if I dropped an atomic bomb on you and killed your entire family, I highly doubt that you would just brush it off to "war". It's naive to say that anti-Americanism doesn't exist in Japan just because you think America is righteous. At least try to put yourself in the shoes of the other guy once in a while.

The bombings were within days of each other. If you think that a surrender would come that swiftly, all you need to see is that the surrender came 9 days after the second bombing. Therefore we can conclude that the Japanese had no chance to surrender after the first bomb. Interestingly enough, Hiroshima was a deliberate place for Americans to test the devastation of the atomic bomb as it was left untouched by regular bombings that happened on the rest of Japan. That frankly is sickening.

Second, America never tried to march on the streets of Tokyo. I don't understand why they would, considering the moat around Japan in similar vain to the moat around the US. After further review, the plan was to atomic Japan a couple more times until Japan can't retaliate against a march in Operation Downfall. In essence, Japan surrendered at the first possible opportunity, which was after the two atomic bombs.
The reason the second bomb was dropped was emphasis, proof that Hiroshima was not a one-time accident, that the disaster was caused by Americans and could be reproduced anywhere we so chose. And the second bomb was absolutely necessary, considering that after Hiroshima the Japanese military was going to impose martial law to stop any peace attempts and many people believe that American only had that one bomb. The bombings were horrifying, yes, but their destructive power had to be greater than Japan's resolve to fight to the last man, woman, and child. It was either Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the Japanese to surrender, or the genocide of almost everyone on those islands. Hundreds of thousands, or tens of millions? So when you consider the alternatives, the atomic bombings saved lives. And while the plan was to use the atom bombs to assist Downfall, the hope of everyone involved was that Japan would surrender after the first bomb. Any perception of the atomic bombings as evil involves the failure to recognize that the only alternatives were far, far worse.

And whether the Japanese feel anti-Americanism is irrelevant towards the issue of whether their feelings are justified or not. They are not. America was far more benevolent to Japan than Japan would have been to America had it been in the position of power, and what America had to resort to to defeat Japan was a direct result of Japan's own refusal to surrender.

So, long story short, they were asking for it, they got much less than they were asking for, and they should be grateful.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 05-06-2011 at 09:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-06-2011, 10:12 PM
Randor's Avatar
Randor Offline
PE2K Website Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Birth Island
Posts: 770
Send a message via AIM to Randor Send a message via Yahoo to Randor Send a message via Skype™ to Randor
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

The press released a message that they found a attack plan by Osama after they killed him that was suppose to take place 9/11/11 for the 'tenth' anniversary of 9/11. He was going to de-rail trains in america.

I'm glad he's dead. Good riddance.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-07-2011, 02:56 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randor View Post
The press released a message that they found a attack plan by Osama after they killed him that was suppose to take place 9/11/11 for the 'tenth' anniversary of 9/11. He was going to de-rail trains in america.

I'm glad he's dead. Good riddance.
Bit of a downgrade from deflying planes xD
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:17 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
The difference is the order of aggression. Japan attacked America first, thus justifying retaliation. Osama Bin Ladin attacked America first, thus justifying retaliation. So, if you start a war against a nonaggressor and then lose it, it's not justified to hate the opposition if their methods were not particularly more extreme than yours (Had Japan had the capability they certainly would have done the same to the US).

The reason the second bomb was dropped was emphasis, proof that Hiroshima was not a one-time accident, that the disaster was caused by Americans and could be reproduced anywhere we so chose. And the second bomb was absolutely necessary, considering that after Hiroshima the Japanese military was going to impose martial law to stop any peace attempts and many people believe that American only had that one bomb. The bombings were horrifying, yes, but their destructive power had to be greater than Japan's resolve to fight to the last man, woman, and child. It was either Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the Japanese to surrender, or the genocide of almost everyone on those islands. Hundreds of thousands, or tens of millions? So when you consider the alternatives, the atomic bombings saved lives. And while the plan was to use the atom bombs to assist Downfall, the hope of everyone involved was that Japan would surrender after the first bomb. Any perception of the atomic bombings as evil involves the failure to recognize that the only alternatives were far, far worse.
America is "righteous" in it that they won. I do, however, agree that Japan would have done much worse had they won the war that they were losing rather tremendously by the time Downfall was being planned out by precedent in Japanese-occupied areas such as China. The Japanese were well aware of the fact that they were going to lose once Germany fell, as the Russians would have curb stomped Japan with the allies. I am, however, of the opinion that America chose the lesser of two evils and not being righteous, as my personal opinion of killing is that it's never righteous. You confuse my intent of my comment, as TA specifically stated that America was righteous in choosing to atomic bomb Japan. I'm stating that it's lesser of two evils.

I'm of the opinion that the bombs did in fact not kill as many people as it would have if Downfall happened. However, I am of the opinion that the first opportunity for Japan to surrender was in fact the second atomic bomb. I'm not sure why you are arguing against me on the exact same thing I was trying to convey, but sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
And whether the Japanese feel anti-Americanism is irrelevant towards the issue of whether their feelings are justified or not. They are not. America was far more benevolent to Japan than Japan would have been to America had it been in the position of power, and what America had to resort to to defeat Japan was a direct result of Japan's own refusal to surrender.

So, long story short, they were asking for it, they got much less than they were asking for, and they should be grateful.
I think you're thinking about this in a manner that is too logical for the average human being. Think population, not you. I don't need my feelings to be justified, just that it exists. The Japanese that lost their loved ones are anti-American. Whether or not this is justified is irrelevant to my original comment, which was that this exists. However, I do think that losing a loved one, regardless of aggression and other global factors is in itself a justification, mainly due to the fact that it's one of the most commonly used justifications of hating something (whether or not you think so is irrelevant as well). Seriously, just trying to convince a man who lost his family to Hiroshima to stop hating America and you'd just get a spit in your face.

Secondarily, just like America, most of the civilians don't know of the extreme measures that Japan has done and was drowning in propaganda. What they saw was their country being bombed by weapons of mass destruction, and combined with the original message sent by the emperor of Japan at the time of surrender, I would find it hard to believe that the average citizen at that point in time would believe that America is benevolent to the country of Japan (even within the context of knowing what happened, they aren't benevolent, just killing less people than necessary).

In essence, I'll break it down to a tl;dr:
Anti-Americanism in Japan exists. This is a statement of fact. Nothing more. Nothing less. This is not a debatable point no matter how you want to spin it.

Anti-Americanism in Japan is rooted in WWII, as the average citizen is in propaganda and were generally unaware of the aggression and situations regarding the war. What they do know are the bombs and the loss of their loved ones. In the case of such an incomplete information, I would find it hard to believe that the average citizen would NOT hate America. Afterwards, even if they do learn the truth, the hatred is already subconsciously there and had sunk in. Why do you think psychiatry is such a difficult branch of medicine to tackle?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:52 AM
::JD::'s Avatar
::JD:: Offline
Elite Trainer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 957
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randor View Post
The press released a message that they found a attack plan by Osama after they killed him that was suppose to take place 9/11/11 for the 'tenth' anniversary of 9/11. He was going to de-rail trains in america.

I'm glad he's dead. Good riddance.
I saw that too. He really did deserve to die. Not that every bad person deserves to die, but he was a menace to humanity.

Now if only we could have even a fraction of the money we spent chasing him down back...
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05-07-2011, 03:59 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
There's no such thing as righteous in war. America's "righteous" in it that they won the war and nothing else. Seriously, if I dropped an atomic bomb on you and killed your entire family, I highly doubt that you would just brush it off to "war". It's naive to say that anti-Americanism doesn't exist in Japan just because you think America is righteous. At least try to put yourself in the shoes of the other guy once in a while.

The bombings were within days of each other. If you think that a surrender would come that swiftly, all you need to see is that the surrender came 9 days after the second bombing. Therefore we can conclude that the Japanese had no chance to surrender after the first bomb. Interestingly enough, Hiroshima was a deliberate place for Americans to test the devastation of the atomic bomb as it was left untouched by regular bombings that happened on the rest of Japan. That frankly is sickening.

Second, America never tried to march on the streets of Tokyo. I don't understand why they would, considering the moat around Japan in similar vain to the moat around the US. After further review, the plan was to atomic Japan a couple more times until Japan can't retaliate against a march in Operation Downfall. In essence, Japan surrendered at the first possible opportunity, which was after the two atomic bombs.
There is such a thing as a righteous war. Japan attacked America FIRST, thus America had the right to go to war against the Axis because they were PROVOKED. If I punched you in the stomach, you would have the right to punch me back or prosecute me. Same with 9/11.

You are able to surrender within a few days of each other. It is not like they had to send a letter. There was phone, there was telegraph, there was radio. Upon learning of the devastation of the horrible device, they could have given it up.

To be fair, while I am against nuclear weapons, I doubt the Americans really believed it would be so devastating. Even the creators and scientists were appalled by the destructive power of the weapon. And the atomic bomb ended up saving lives. Not just Japanese lives, but American and British lives as well. (Yes, little known fact, the British and Aussies were involved with Japan too)

If America did not drop the bombs, they would have fought for at least another year. The Japanese would not have given up until their capital was captured or leveled to the ground and every single Japanese citizen had fought to their last breath. I both honor their courage, but feel that it is a waste of life as well. You cannot possibly say that America would have never invaded Japans capital.

Nah, that is not how you won back in World War 2! You tried to negotiate peace with them, right? No. In World War 2, if the bombs were not dropped, America would have HAD to capture ALL of the Japanese empire. While I do grieve for the people who died, and believe me, it is sickening, it was WAR. WAR IS sickening. ALL sides committed atrocities, not just America. Not just Germany. EVERYONE.

Killing can be justified, if it is self-defense and nothing more.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:36 PM
Orthar's Avatar
Orthar Offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away from Crusties.
Posts: 5,506
Send a message via AIM to Orthar Send a message via MSN to Orthar Send a message via Skype™ to Orthar
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by TitaniumAnimations View Post
Nah, that is not how you won back in World War 2! You tried to negotiate peace with them, right? No. In World War 2, if the bombs were not dropped, America would have HAD to capture ALL of the Japanese empire. While I do grieve for the people who died, and believe me, it is sickening, it was WAR. WAR IS sickening. ALL sides committed atrocities, not just America. Not just Germany. EVERYONE.
Your idiocy is sickening.

Ad hominem

Last edited by PainKiller; 05-08-2011 at 06:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:51 PM
ReclusiveDemon's Avatar
ReclusiveDemon Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Trident
Posts: 3,870
Send a message via AIM to ReclusiveDemon Send a message via MSN to ReclusiveDemon Send a message via Skype™ to ReclusiveDemon
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by TitaniumAnimations View Post
If America did not drop the bombs, they would have fought for at least another year. The Japanese would not have given up until their capital was captured or leveled to the ground and every single Japanese citizen had fought to their last breath. I both honor their courage, but feel that it is a waste of life as well. You cannot possibly say that America would have never invaded Japans capital.
If you read deep enough into the Pacific War, you would know that we knew good and well we could not take Tokyo and that without the bomb, the only other logical thing we could do-- as a full scale invasion of the mainland was going to be a long, brutal, miserable war --was to simply starve the country to death on food and resources by blockading the entire country. The loss of lives for America would have been far too great to take the mainland.

It's like I'm really reading FOX news articles when I read your posts.
__________________
formerly known as ReclusiveDemon

Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:59 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReclusiveDemon View Post
If you read deep enough into the Pacific War, you would know that we knew good and well we could not take Tokyo and that without the bomb, the only other logical thing we could do-- as a full scale invasion of the mainland was going to be a long, brutal, miserable war --was to simply starve the country to death on food and resources by blockading the entire country. The loss of lives for America would have been far too great to take the mainland.

It's like I'm really reading FOX news articles when I read your posts.
Japan had China under its rule at the time, and the Japanese, as I said before, would not have given up. We already had the Japanese military on the run, their navy was deteriorating, their airforce was being blown out of the sky, and they were losing island after island. THEY STILL did not give up.

I also love how you two have the insolence and blind arrogance to make such outrageous comments. It is like you are as biased as both CNN and FOX put together. PainKiller is an idiot, just simply making random criticism without an actual remark, and the person above me making a pitiful attempt at criticism, but failing without actually thinking that America was not the only one with a vendetta towards the Japanese.

We could take Tokyo, the Japanese were already losing the war, and with Russia to the north, Japan would be sandwiched just like Germany was. The only problem after that is the fact that when Russia defeats, they tend to stay.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:

Last edited by Teddiursa of the Sky; 05-08-2011 at 07:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-07-2011, 07:13 PM
Orthar's Avatar
Orthar Offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away from Crusties.
Posts: 5,506
Send a message via AIM to Orthar Send a message via MSN to Orthar Send a message via Skype™ to Orthar
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by TitaniumAnimations View Post

I also love how you two have the insolence and blind arrogance to make such outrageous comments. It is like you are as biased as both CNN and FOX put together. PainKiller is an idiot, just simply making random criticism without an actual remark, and the person above me making a pitiful attempt at criticism, but failing without actually thinking that America was not the only one with a vendetta towards the Japanese.
I saw absolutely no reason to actually point out the flaws in your argument because it would have been a wasted effort. It appears that I am right, considering how you responded to ReclusiveDemon. You have absolutely no knowledge on war, politics of countries, or any global issue for that matter.

But seriously, to think that the makers of the Atomic Bomb had no idea of it's power is just plain ignorant and wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 05-08-2011, 01:16 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
America is "righteous" in it that they won. I do, however, agree that Japan would have done much worse had they won the war that they were losing rather tremendously by the time Downfall was being planned out by precedent in Japanese-occupied areas such as China. The Japanese were well aware of the fact that they were going to lose once Germany fell, as the Russians would have curb stomped Japan with the allies. I am, however, of the opinion that America chose the lesser of two evils and not being righteous, as my personal opinion of killing is that it's never righteous. You confuse my intent of my comment, as TA specifically stated that America was righteous in choosing to atomic bomb Japan. I'm stating that it's lesser of two evils.
So, what would you have had them do? If righteousness was impossible in that circumstance, why even accuse them of unrighteousness? It's a pointless statement of the obvious, given your definition of "righteous".

Quote:
I'm of the opinion that the bombs did in fact not kill as many people as it would have if Downfall happened. However, I am of the opinion that the first opportunity for Japan to surrender was in fact the second atomic bomb. I'm not sure why you are arguing against me on the exact same thing I was trying to convey, but sure.
No, the first opportunity was the first bomb; Japan simply did not take it. There was nothing that was physically stopping Japan from surrendering other than their own politics and psychology. It's not as if the US wasn't going to accept a surrender or that Japan was physically unable to surrender. It was a decision by the higher-ups that they would not, a decision that changed once the second bomb was dropped.

Quote:
I think you're thinking about this in a manner that is too logical for the average human being. Think population, not you. I don't need my feelings to be justified, just that it exists. The Japanese that lost their loved ones are anti-American. Whether or not this is justified is irrelevant to my original comment, which was that this exists. However, I do think that losing a loved one, regardless of aggression and other global factors is in itself a justification, mainly due to the fact that it's one of the most commonly used justifications of hating something (whether or not you think so is irrelevant as well). Seriously, just trying to convince a man who lost his family to Hiroshima to stop hating America and you'd just get a spit in your face.
He can hate it as much as he wants; I'm merely pointing out that it's unjustified hatred. I do not expect emotions to be rational any more than I expect gravity to be repulsive. But you seem to act as if his feelings are justified.

Quote:
Secondarily, just like America, most of the civilians don't know of the extreme measures that Japan has done and was drowning in propaganda. What they saw was their country being bombed by weapons of mass destruction, and combined with the original message sent by the emperor of Japan at the time of surrender, I would find it hard to believe that the average citizen at that point in time would believe that America is benevolent to the country of Japan (even within the context of knowing what happened, they aren't benevolent, just killing less people than necessary).
Willful ignorance is no excuse for any wrong; it's not as if the Japanese have never been exposed to other ideas or are unable to obtain or understand the information.


Quote:
In essence, I'll break it down to a tl;dr:
Anti-Americanism in Japan exists. This is a statement of fact. Nothing more. Nothing less. This is not a debatable point no matter how you want to spin it.
Once again, never did I state that anti-Americanism did not exist, merely that it should not exist. Having nothing to be angry about doesn't mean one can't be angry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReclusiveDemon View Post
If you read deep enough into the Pacific War, you would know that we knew good and well we could not take Tokyo and that without the bomb, the only other logical thing we could do-- as a full scale invasion of the mainland was going to be a long, brutal, miserable war --was to simply starve the country to death on food and resources by blockading the entire country. The loss of lives for America would have been far too great to take the mainland.

It's like I'm really reading FOX news articles when I read your posts.
Sure we could, that was the whole point of Operation Downfall. It astounds me to think of how badly people underestimate America's power in that era. Between the Americans and the Soviets, the invasion of mainland Japan WAS going to succeed, bomb or no bomb, and there was absolutely nothing the Japanese could do about it. Japan did not have the superiority in numbers or technology or tactics or determination (although they did have the advantage in brutality), and every battle prior to that had ended up with the Japanese taking far more casualties than the Americans regardless of how long the Japanese had to dig in or how well they were fortified. America was fully prepared to sacrifice the hundreds of thousands of casualties it would have taken to invade Japan--there was no point at which Truman ever decided that there was an alternative in the case that Japan did not surrender. Tokyo was going to fall, whether by surrender or invasion; there was no other possible outcome.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 05-08-2011 at 01:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-08-2011, 02:53 AM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokemon Trainer Sarah View Post
Are you sure? Personally if I was in the US right now I wouldn't be celebrating and showing off. It's like they're trying to rile up these terrorists even more. They are gonna retaliate. :x
Yep, and we ALL know Retaliate does 2X the damage when an Opponet's Pokemon Fainted (Died) Last turn. We gotta bump up dey Security.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-08-2011, 03:16 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
So, what would you have had them do? If righteousness was impossible in that circumstance, why even accuse them of unrighteousness? It's a pointless statement of the obvious, given your definition of "righteous".
I don't understand your issue with the comment in itself. I said America chose the lesser of two evils, and thus minimized the amount of evil they had to do to end the war. A correct decision, I would say, in the sense that when presented with those choices, it would have been it.

It's silly to think that murdering thousands of civilians is anywhere near righteous, no matter the circumstance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
No, the first opportunity was the first bomb; Japan simply did not take it. There was nothing that was physically stopping Japan from surrendering other than their own politics and psychology. It's not as if the US wasn't going to accept a surrender or that Japan was physically unable to surrender. It was a decision by the higher-ups that they would not, a decision that changed once the second bomb was dropped.
Source?
I have a better idea, how about bureaucracy? It took Japan 6 days after fat man hit to surrender. It's very likely that they were debating the merits of the Potsdam declaration and were trying to change certain clauses or add some of their own clauses to it. They were aware that they were losing and were certainly trying to get into a better angle than what the treaty had stated. And it makes good sense. Germany was so shafted by Versailles that they had to look at this with a fine tooth comb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
He can hate it as much as he wants; I'm merely pointing out that it's unjustified hatred. I do not expect emotions to be rational any more than I expect gravity to be repulsive. But you seem to act as if his feelings are justified.

Willful ignorance is no excuse for any wrong; it's not as if the Japanese have never been exposed to other ideas or are unable to obtain or understand the information.

Once again, never did I state that anti-Americanism did not exist, merely that it should not exist. Having nothing to be angry about doesn't mean one can't be angry.
I was under the impression that you say the Japanese don't have anti-Americanism, which is what sparked the discussion in the first place. Yes, I do think that innocent civilians who lost their loved ones do have justification of their hatred for America. It is, of course, just a subpopulation of Japan.

Also, it's impossible not to be "willfully ignorant" when all the information you get is censored by the media. This isn't the 22nd century where the internet gives you unlimited knowledge from anywhere in the world. The reliable measures of communication and information was still the media. Censored media. So yes, they actually were unable to obtain the information that you think is common knowledge now. By the time information starts to flow more freely, it's too late.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-08-2011, 03:47 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
I don't understand your issue with the comment in itself. I said America chose the lesser of two evils, and thus minimized the amount of evil they had to do to end the war. A correct decision, I would say, in the sense that when presented with those choices, it would have been it.

It's silly to think that murdering thousands of civilians is anywhere near righteous, no matter the circumstance.
Morality is relative. Given the choice between killing a thousand people and millions, the moral choice is the former, no matter how immoral that would be on an absolute scale. If you take the best, most righteous person in the world, and give him that choice, he will pick the righteous one. It's equally silly to assume that there's some absolute scale of righteousness that exists independent of the circumstance.



Quote:
Source?
I have a better idea, how about bureaucracy? It took Japan 6 days after fat man hit to surrender. It's very likely that they were debating the merits of the Potsdam declaration and were trying to change certain clauses or add some of their own clauses to it. They were aware that they were losing and were certainly trying to get into a better angle than what the treaty had stated. And it makes good sense. Germany was so shafted by Versailles that they had to look at this with a fine tooth comb.
Which is a psychological restriction, not a physical one. You might as well say they couldn't surrender because they didn't want to. I have no doubt that they were looking for the best way forward, but there was nothing asides from their own decisions stopping them to transmitting a declaration of unconditional surrender at any point. A physical restriction would have been something akin to the second bomb arriving so soon after the first that the Japanese government hadn't even heard of Hiroshima yet. Regardless, I do admit that, given the Japanese mindset at the time, it would have been unreasonable for them to take the opportunity, thus necessitating the second bomb.

Quote:
I was under the impression that you say the Japanese don't have anti-Americanism, which is what sparked the discussion in the first place. Yes, I do think that innocent civilians who lost their loved ones do have justification of their hatred for America. It is, of course, just a subpopulation of Japan.
Disagree. To provide an analogy: Say a teenager's parents tell him that should he be caught partying late at night without permission, he will be grounded. Nevertheless, the teenager does this anyways, gets caught, and is then grounded. As a result, he is angry towards his parents. Is his anger justified? No: he knew full well the consequences of his actions and chose to perform them anyways, irrationally expecting that they would not be fulfilled; thus his anger is unjustified. Moreover, the consequence is not irrational. In a similar vein, Japan knew the consequences of starting a war with the US (i.e. some of their people would die), did it anyways, then is angry at the entirely reasonable punishment. Moreover, in Japan's case the consequence was less than what it expected, like a teenager that was supposed to be grounded for a week but only grounded for a day but is nevertheless angry.

That said, Japan's case is far more complicated than a teenager's, even if the analogy holds true. There are varying degrees of innocence that the citizens hold regarding the war, which is not a problem when only one person is committing the crime (although, I would argue that when cultures, economies, and indeed, entire civilizations go to war, there are very few true innocents). So, while the anger is understandable, it is not justified, as demonstrated by the fact that America's actions were a justified response to unjustified Japanese actions, thus making the appropriate target of the anger the Japanese government of the WWII-era.

Quote:
Also, it's impossible not to be "willfully ignorant" when all the information you get is censored by the media. This isn't the 22nd century where the internet gives you unlimited knowledge from anywhere in the world. The reliable measures of communication and information was still the media. Censored media. So yes, they actually were unable to obtain the information that you think is common knowledge now. By the time information starts to flow more freely, it's too late.
They have that information now; they are angry now; the ignorance that may once have excused their anger is no longer justified.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-08-2011, 02:36 PM
Megiddo Flame's Avatar
Megiddo Flame Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mass-Uh-Chew-Sits
Posts: 938
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Morality is relative. Given the choice between killing a thousand people and millions, the moral choice is the former, no matter how immoral that would be on an absolute scale. If you take the best, most righteous person in the world, and give him that choice, he will pick the righteous one. It's equally silly to assume that there's some absolute scale of righteousness that exists independent of the circumstance.




Which is a psychological restriction, not a physical one. You might as well say they couldn't surrender because they didn't want to. I have no doubt that they were looking for the best way forward, but there was nothing asides from their own decisions stopping them to transmitting a declaration of unconditional surrender at any point. A physical restriction would have been something akin to the second bomb arriving so soon after the first that the Japanese government hadn't even heard of Hiroshima yet. Regardless, I do admit that, given the Japanese mindset at the time, it would have been unreasonable for them to take the opportunity, thus necessitating the second bomb.


Disagree. To provide an analogy: Say a teenager's parents tell him that should he be caught partying late at night without permission, he will be grounded. Nevertheless, the teenager does this anyways, gets caught, and is then grounded. As a result, he is angry towards his parents. Is his anger justified? No: he knew full well the consequences of his actions and chose to perform them anyways, irrationally expecting that they would not be fulfilled; thus his anger is unjustified. Moreover, the consequence is not irrational. In a similar vein, Japan knew the consequences of starting a war with the US (i.e. some of their people would die), did it anyways, then is angry at the entirely reasonable punishment. Moreover, in Japan's case the consequence was less than what it expected, like a teenager that was supposed to be grounded for a week but only grounded for a day but is nevertheless angry.

That said, Japan's case is far more complicated than a teenager's, even if the analogy holds true. There are varying degrees of innocence that the citizens hold regarding the war, which is not a problem when only one person is committing the crime (although, I would argue that when cultures, economies, and indeed, entire civilizations go to war, there are very few true innocents). So, while the anger is understandable, it is not justified, as demonstrated by the fact that America's actions were a justified response to unjustified Japanese actions, thus making the appropriate target of the anger the Japanese government of the WWII-era.



They have that information now; they are angry now; the ignorance that may once have excused their anger is no longer justified.
I have two words to say about his demise: THANK ARCEUS!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com