Support Politirant Through Amazon
Visit our sister site at the Political Forums

Author Topic: Moral Equivalence  (Read 4436 times)

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2011, 01:36:46 PM »
And after all that had happened could the U.S. afford to keep slogging it out and waiting for a Japanese surrender while sitting on the technology that could end it? Do we not make every effort to avoid war and then once committed, make every effort to win it? How would we judge American leaders if they sacrificed more of our men in the hopes that the Japanese would eventually see the writing on the wall?

The argument hinges on the notion that the peace party in Japan could have won out. The military controlled the country. It's a doubtful proposition. The US public wanted an end to the war and there were few signs that Japan was giving way considering the resistance she put up on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Mind you, Us casualties began to sky rocket at this time and the fear of having to invade Japan was very real. The cynicism of hindsight is, IMO, almost obscene.
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Peter1469

  • V.I.P.
  • Full Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 5
  • -Received: 22
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 30
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2011, 06:51:00 PM »
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us? 

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten? 

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2011, 07:07:56 PM »
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us? 

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten?

Pride or our custom of war making? I don't doubt that racial and cultural differences caused a great deal of uncertainty and resulted in the viciousness displayed by both sides that became typical of the Pacific war. US marines sent Japanese bones and teeth back to their families and girlfriends.  The Japanese murdered US prisoners and one officer reportedly ate the liver of a downed US pilot. Mind you, I'm not hailing the US as an angel. Frankly, I think the strategic bombing campaign was heinous, unnecessary, and ultimately criminal. I feel the same with regard to the leveling of Japan. We intentionally targeted civilians and killed a heck of a lot more of them using conventional arms than we did using atomic weapons. That said, I object to putting this on par with Auschwitz and the Holocaust. Apples and oranges. One was intended to end the war. The other was an act of war only in the most diseased Nazi minds. Our nameless moron speaks of justification. I'm sure a Nazi could justify what he did at a death camp. So? What is that supposed to prove? That's really all the same? Human beings can justify or rationalize anything. Does that make their rationalizations plausible or appropriate?

Sorry, Peter, something about that guy really irritates me.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 07:16:29 PM by Mister D »
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Conley

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 288
  • -Received: 190
  • Posts: 7726
  • Karma: 398
  • Are You Not Entertained?!?
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2011, 07:09:02 PM »
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us? 

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten? 

What if they're given time to regroup and resupply though?
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -Eisenhower

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2011, 07:13:05 PM »
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us? 

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten? 

What if they're given time to regroup and resupply though?

Even without an actual invasion we had millions of men stationed around the world who want to desperately to go home. Moreover, their families are worried sick about them. US leaders are responsible for American soldiers and their families. You lost the f'n war. Surrender.
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Conley

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 288
  • -Received: 190
  • Posts: 7726
  • Karma: 398
  • Are You Not Entertained?!?
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2011, 07:19:42 PM »
Right...not sure if my point was clear but what I meant was just leaving to them to their business on those islands could end up biting us later on down the line once they were resupplied and rearmed.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -Eisenhower

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2011, 07:28:30 PM »
Right...not sure if my point was clear but what I meant was just leaving to them to their business on those islands could end up biting us later on down the line once they were resupplied and rearmed.

I understand. I doubt they could have mounted a serious offensive threat though even after regrouping. Their navy was shattered and we pretty much controlled the seas as well as the air. On the other hand, it's not about what I know now or what someone knew after the war. Obviously, we' weren't going to pack up, go home, and pretend it never happened. We were going to keep the pressure on Japan until the surrender.
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Conley

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 288
  • -Received: 190
  • Posts: 7726
  • Karma: 398
  • Are You Not Entertained?!?
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2011, 07:36:51 PM »
Got it. I guess for me it also makes no sense because all Japan had to do to end it was surrender. It wasn't as if we would have continued the war through that. Ultimately their leadership deserves the blame IMO.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -Eisenhower

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2011, 08:20:57 PM »
Got it. I guess for me it also makes no sense because all Japan had to do to end it was surrender. It wasn't as if we would have continued the war through that. Ultimately their leadership deserves the blame IMO.

IMO, there was a serious cultural disconnect that prevented a less violent resolution. Throughout the war Japanese troops refused to surrender and willingly died for the Emperor. That could not have but heightened Americans' sense of Japanese fanaticism and fatalism.
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Peter1469

  • V.I.P.
  • Full Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 5
  • -Received: 22
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 30
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2011, 09:23:08 PM »
And if the US decided to not nuke or invade Japan, and if the Japanese were still isolated and starving on their Island, how does that affect us? 

Was it not pride that caused us to consider the invasion of people who were already beaten?

Pride or our custom of war making? I don't doubt that racial and cultural differences caused a great deal of uncertainty and resulted in the viciousness displayed by both sides that became typical of the Pacific war. US marines sent Japanese bones and teeth back to their families and girlfriends.  The Japanese murdered US prisoners and one officer reportedly ate the liver of a downed US pilot. Mind you, I'm not hailing the US as an angel. Frankly, I think the strategic bombing campaign was heinous, unnecessary, and ultimately criminal. I feel the same with regard to the leveling of Japan. We intentionally targeted civilians and killed a heck of a lot more of them using conventional arms than we did using atomic weapons. That said, I object to putting this on par with Auschwitz and the Holocaust. Apples and oranges. One was intended to end the war. The other was an act of war only in the most diseased Nazi minds. Our nameless moron speaks of justification. I'm sure a Nazi could justify what he did at a death camp. So? What is that supposed to prove? That's really all the same? Human beings can justify or rationalize anything. Does that make their rationalizations plausible or appropriate?

Sorry, Peter, something about that guy really irritates me.

Agree 100%

 


Support Politirant Through Amazon