(September 12, 2012 at 9:30 pm)Shell B Wrote: Well, when they happen is irrelevant. Any war crimes in history would count as a black mark, yes? Regardless, I am talking about how they treated prisoners of war during the second Sino-Japanese/World War II.

I think it is futile to compare the behavior of one nation to another. Really, none is without blame for some disgusting or inhumane act. The only reason I argue the point is that this whole "Jap" this, "Jap" that spewing out of what's his name reeks of racial motivation. Maybe that doesn't make his argument less valid, but it sure makes it sound more biased than average.

2.2 million japanese died in that war (1.7 million of whom were chinese fighting on the side of Japan) as oppose to 22 million chinese, on top of the fact that Japan started the war, and had been invading Korea and mainland China for decades. I wouldn't consider any treatment of military prisoners in that case "atrocities" and yes comparing one country to another is acceptable as shit do you think Greenland and Germany have the same amount of guilt as far as war crimes are concerned?

Greenland was settled by Vikings. *sigh* Why is it that people the government of one country killing civilians excuses another?

Yeah, the number of civilians our side lost was tremendous by comparison. Does that excuse it? Say a man kills another man's children, does that give the other man leave to kill the first man's children? No. You can make excuses all you want, but we know a "they're meaner and did it first" argument would not fly in any non-war scenario. So, choose a side that you want to win all you want. Everyone does. What I am saying is you do not have to excuse atrocities by pointing to other atrocities as if it somehow fucking negates it. Revenge is not a good argument. They were worse is not a good argument. I think you know that.

One thing I think we all do agree on is that the bombings themselves were horrible. If I may be entirely frank the argument of "was [X] horrible or not horrible" becomes moot once you even begin the topic of war. Human beings killing each other over parcels of land, over unthinking, unaware plants or inorganic fuels and raw materials? Insanity.

WWII can be blamed entirely on WWI. And WWI can be blamed entirely on a bunch of stuffed-shirt nobles and royals wearing monocles and top-hats, lording it on high over their minions and sending them to die by the fucking millions in hopeless battles of attrition while they themselves regarded the entire affair almost like a sport.

WWII brought out some of the worst examples of human cruelty. It brought out many of the nobler aspects, too, but it also brought out many of the worst. The atomic bombs? Not even the worst thing to happen in that entire war, not by a far cry. On its own, without purpose, without aim, I would have called it perhaps one of the single greatest atrocities ever. But for the reasons and the need for it, it becomes a different kind of horror; the one of torturous necessity, which dims the glare, and becomes less a fault of men, and far greater the fault of power, and especially those in possession of it, for allowing it to come to that point.

Now, Shell, you mentioned something about giggly Japanese girls snapping photos of everything. Yes, this is a pleasant view of them, but having toured Japan rather extensively over the course of about two months, not as a tourist but as one trying to learn the culture, I can very confidently assure you; the Japanese are not exactly the most pleasant of people. Ironically, the ones who are more westernized tend to be the more cheerful, friendly, and open, but the ones who are more 'traditional' are xenophobic to an extreme extent; you think the southerners are bad? Hoooo-weeeee...they ain't shit by comparison. Japanese society as a whole is very xenophobic and insulated and very unwilling to be accommodating to non-Japanese individuals. You can go there, study there, LIVE there, for years, decades even, completely immerse yourself into their way of life but you will ALWAYS be an outsider and will ALWAYS be considered second-rate no matter where you go in Japan [other than Okinawa], and believe me, I know PLENTY of people who have confirmed this. At least here in the US we have entire regions that are open and accepting on a scale of majority to outsiders and foreigners and those of different color and creeds. You shall find no such haven anywhere on the mainland of Japan.

I have no problems with the Japanese, myself. I understand their xenophobia and mistrust and I bear them no return on the feelings. But believe me when I say there's a lot of Japanese who highly support and endorse Japanese leaders who choose to honor the genocidal sociopaths interred at the Yasakuni Shrine. Especially when the visit is specifically done to honor the specific war criminals themselves rather than the myriad millions of dead soldiers.

Basically what I'm getting at, here; don't let the outward appearances deceive you; they've still got the old Imperial fires burning, even if just the embers, in their culture and society. It endures; another piece of evidence to show that the atomic bombs were necessary.

Hmmm, a kid who grew up down the street from me teaches in Japan. He's lived there for years. His facebook posts, pictures and descriptions differ from yours. I think the point that is getting lost here is that you can't paint everyone with the same brush. I brought up the girls with cameras as an example. I was by no means even implying that all Japanese people are like that. I was pointing out that not all Japanese people are grudge holding psychopaths. People are people. Even the people living under one roof are different. Imagine the differences in people living in an entire nation, particularly one as populous as Japan is.

Japanese people are very well-traveled. They live in a very forward country as far as tech is concerned. They produce shows that are absolutely asinine. I doubt the dudes who dress up in little sumo g-strings and make bad television give a flying fuck about World War II. You're being paranoid. Just that fact that different people describe different experiences in Japan should be enough to stop you from using terms like "as a whole" when describing the country's people.

I know I will never be able to change the fact that most people try to fit all individuals of a country into one neat little package, but I sure wish I could. There are enough American people that totally piss me off that I can say I cannot be defined by my countrymen.

(September 13, 2012 at 4:02 am)Shell B Wrote: There are enough American people that totally piss me off that I can say I cannot be defined by my countrymen.

Oh, so you're American. I thought you were British because Tiberius is British. It's interesting to know more and more about the people here. That's the trouble with the internet. You can't hear accents and you can't see the person in front of you. But it's also good. If we were all discussing Japan and the nuclear bombs at a party, I would not have said a word. I wouldn't have bothered to interfere in "adults' talk". But I have a lot of great ideas such as my idea on how to bring about world peace which I discussed in another thread which will win me my Nobel Peace prize. The good thing about the internet forum is it's a level playing field. You can post your views and nobody will say "Why don't you go out and play".

(September 12, 2012 at 8:52 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(September 12, 2012 at 8:06 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Our governments are in no way, shape or form moral. If we are to look at our collective histories and recent circumstance we can in no way fool ourselves into thinking they are.

... I don't think I was doing that? Was I?

I'm confused.

No no, I was agreeing with you in part. I was just stating why. I don't think a governments people are necessarily to blame. Most people have very little say in how their government is run. I would say it is more the government that makes the decision to war in the first place who is responsible for the bloodshed and thus the guilt should weigh most heavily upon them. Then again I suppose the decision to comply with that government makes us at least partially responsible.

---

(September 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(September 12, 2012 at 7:24 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: I find it hilarious how certain of us have such quaint ideas about war.

Don't be a prat. Knowing that certain acts of war are just plain horrendous does not make one's notions quaint.

Quote:War isn't quaint. It doesn't have your notions of honour or etiquette.

Actually, military personnel are quite often held to a higher standard of honor and etiquette. You should see the rules the army has for how soldiers are supposed to treat civilians, even state side.

Quote:There isn't a right way to kill someone and a human being doesn't stop being human just because it wears a uniform.

Funny. No one so much as hinted that there was. However, there are weapons that are too vast in their scope to be legitimately used in war. We learned that. If it was so fucking right, why haven't we used them again?

Quote:War will kill, maim, destroy with little regard for whoever is in its path. No-one is guilty and no-one is innocent because war doesn't presume to make such judgements. Murder, rape, torture.

That's a load of bullshit perpetuated by shitty war movies. If there are no guilty and no innocent, why are their war criminals? It is not somehow deep to look at the horror of war as unavoidable. It's actually dismissive and weak.

Quote:Travesties when performed by the other side but conventionally ignored when performed by our own. We will decorate those who we would call murderers in any other circumstance.

This is what the "quaint" people are pointing out, you little contradictory butthead.

War criminals tend to be far more present on the side that lost. When war crimes are perpetrated by our own side such embarrassments will be covered up and swept under the carpet all together. If not possible, formal tribunals suffice in putting peoples concerns that perhaps their side wasn't whiter than white to rest by putting "the bad guys" behind bars supposedly leaving only the people who killed in a way palatable to our tastes.
This "standard of honour" has been brought into question time after time. There was an incident over here where a gay solider was shot multiple times in the head. The verdict was suicide. Another where a sergeant tortured and abused his own troops and his superiors allowed it. After afew news reports the story went silent. Both incidents were not even during a time of war. The "standard of honour" only operates so far as the public eye can see and sometimes not even then. The public eye is not more blinded than during a time of intense warfare.
This is not to say this is the personality type of every single individual serving in the military. It is to say they are paid to kill. As long as actions considered morally abhorrent don't go public and it does not conflict with their interests the military could care less as long as they serve their purpose as weapons.
A statement doesn't have to be directed towards any one person to be valid. Killing is killing. Whether its a solider or a civilian, friend or enemy, through a shot to the head or less merciful means. One form cannot be held more moral than the other, all lead to the intolerable act of taking a human life. During the conflicts in the middle-east we have killed an unimaginable amount of innocent people through "shock and awe" tactics... yet we complain about the few body bags we have received. We consider the lives we have lost more than that of the countless innocents we have claimed. The death of a countryman is more personal than that of any amount of foreigners who we never saw, never met and never related to in anyway.
There is no real morality behind this view yet it is one many hold without even realizing it.
I think my main point is the only decision we can realistically apply any morallity to is the decision to wage war in the first place and the contributing factors to it. What happens afterwards is the resulting war which can in no way have morality applied to it. War is the same regardless of the original intent or reasoning behind it. It is the process of mass slaughter to improve ones own position, there is no morally right way to embark on that. The objective of each government will be to end it as quickly as possible, losing as little resources as possible with a conclusion favourable to enhancing their own rule. Those are the only real guidelines war follows and the bomb was an inevitable consequence of this.
I didn't think there was that much in my statement that was the subject of dispute but whatever.
Quite presumptuous to assume I had labelled you one of the quaint people.

(September 12, 2012 at 11:33 pm)Shell B Wrote: You are sensitive about what trannies are referred to as, yes? That's a double standard, sweetie.

Hmmm, true. Even still... I don't usually say something about it. My recent response in another thread was mostly for educational purposes of the same guy you're irritated with And that was because he was talking about transvestites as though they were transsexuals XD

Like calling a Japanese person Chinese... they may look a bit similar, but it's likely to irritate or amuse the Japanese person

---

(September 13, 2012 at 12:05 am)greneknight Wrote: I offended some of them in another thread when I thought "trans" was short for transvestite and not wanting to say the shortened form, seeing how you don't like it, I said "transvestite" to their outrage.

Why wouldn't we like trans? XD

And I wasn't offended at all: I was being dramatic.

The truth is what the squeamish would call "war crime", if they had only known about it, is often a necessary foundation for lasting peace. For example, at the end of WWII, several million ethnic Germans living in traditionally German territories were expelled, at great suffering, from traditionally German territories when these territories were reallocated to other countries. Perhaps half a million starved or froze to death during the forced migration. Germany was made to sign an agreement on behalf of the expelled Germans to relinquish all claims in prepetuity to all land and properties they were forced to leave behind.

Had the act been done onto any but a defeated power, it would have been called a war crime.

But prior to 1945, Germany had repeatedly used the excuse of uniting all Germans (One People) under German rule (one Reich) to demand territory from neighbors or invade adjacent countries. This problem was solved at the end of WWII by making sure almost no Germans lived outside of the remaining rump of Germany. One dare say it is thanks to this act that countries in Eastern Europe sleeps soundly at night today. Even the Germans are quite aware this forms a foundatioin of confidence in European stability.

(September 12, 2012 at 6:18 pm)Shell B Wrote: I think what is being lost here is that saying it was immoral and wrong is not quite the same as saying it did not work or it was not strategically sound. A war was going on, yes. Most things about war are immoral and wrong. Are they necessary? It depends on who you ask. I will never, ever say that dropping two nukes was good.

I have a bone to pick with you over this.

Can it not also be argued that not engaging in a strategic action (that by definition saves manpower and resources) is immoral?

Dropping nukes was good because dropping firebombs was considered good. Just like dropping any munition is considered 'good'.

You've failed to demonstrate the moral difference between a nuclear warhead and a conventional firebomb.

Nor have you disputed the point that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate military targets.

A great many people perished in Tokyo due to the firebombs. Many died in Dresden from the same.

Are you really willing to go out on a limb and assign morality to an entire class weapons that are meant to kill entire cities when other classes accomplish the same or even greater body counts?

(September 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(September 13, 2012 at 12:05 am)greneknight Wrote: I offended some of them in another thread when I thought "trans" was short for transvestite and not wanting to say the shortened form, seeing how you don't like it, I said "transvestite" to their outrage.

Why wouldn't we like trans? XD

And I wasn't offended at all: I was being dramatic.

Not at all. You were very gracious. But I do want to be careful of my choice of words. I thought trans would be too brief and seeing that ShellB pointed out that Jap was rude, I wanted to be more cautious with trans. But I didn't know "transvestite" was more offensive.