- Mar 6, 2008
They attacked the Chinese, the Philippines, the Australians (though they weren't able to gain a land foothold that I'm aware of), they invaded Vietnam in 1941, they already had the Korean Peninsula from the 19th century. Everywhere they went they brought with them their ethnocentrism and xenophobia, which the melded into an erratic pattern of inhuman brutality. They quite literally did not see their victims as human, and treated them accordingly. I'm sorry you're too blinded by anime or whatever to see through this, but you're spewing bullshit. Again, look up Unit 731, even if all you can find is wiki, and get a good look at the behavior of their troops. It wasn't an organized operation like the Nazis, but in the long term, genocide was their objective.Lupus in fabula said:The Japanese were not trying to exterminate every other ethnicity on the planet. What a ridiculous thing to say! They only attacked the Chinese (to get hold of their natural resources) and the US. They didn't even touch the USSR!Starke said:I'm sorry, you fail comparative politics. The United States isn't involved in a campaign to exterminate every other ethnicity on the goddamn planet. The Japanese were. The United States did not issue orders to arm its population with sticks and resist to the last. The Japanese did.
That's the point. If you're going to ***** out the US, World War II is a very poor example.Lupus in fabula said:On the other hand, since we are discussing the extermination of other ethnicities; can you count how many countries has the US invaded (in Africa, Latin America, Middle East), killed their civilians, and installed dictatorships and puppet governments since the end of WWII?
Wars are rarely about good versus bad, but outside of some revisionist interpretations, there's very little moral ambiguity about fighting against the Nazis or the Japanese. The thing to remember here is, the Japanese in WWII make the Nazis look like fucking boyscouts.
Hillarious Trivia fact. Lyndon B. Johnson was president in 1967, and Nixon was just a former senator from California who'd lost the 1960 presidential bid. Though, this does sound A LOT like LBJ's style.Lupus in fabula said:My country (Greece) is just one of them. We have the US and especially that bastard Nixon to "thank" for our "lovely" dictatorship (1967?1974).
Lupus in fabula said:But hey, you know at least you saved everyone so that they wouldn't suffer under Communism. And by save I mean murder.
A little of col. A, a little of col. B. The Soviet Union, particularly while Stalin was a live was not a happy place. Things got better after he died, but it was impossible to tell that from the outside. Combine that with the Domino Effect, which was a relevant input in American foreign policy until around 1973, and you have a recipe for disaster.
You accuse me of being out of it, and then take a turn into crazy land. That's cute. Okay, here's a quick fact check. There is no radioactive fallout from the nuclear attacks in Japan. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. It does not fucking exist.Lupus in fabula said:Oh man, you're out of your mind. The nukes were merciful? People are still dying from radiation and babies are being born deformed...I won't even dignify that insanity by giving you a proper answer.Starke said:The nukes weren't punishment, they were merciful. Seriously. When choosing between having to go house by house and kill off every person on the main islands or nuke them to prove that any sacrifice they made would be completely in vain? Prove to them that we could annihilate them without offering them the "honor" of dying in battle? Nuking was the humane option. The only place where this is disputed is in revisionist history.
Was Agent Orange also merciful?
Can it? Yeah, sure, if the bombs are more than a couple kilotons you can get some lingering radiation for a few years (to centuries) in a closed environment. Prevailing winds mean any post blast radioactive dust (fallout) gets blown someplace else in fairly short order. Had the world actually ended up trying to blow itself to hell in 1962, there would have been problems. But there aren't in Japan.
You know where you do find persistent radiation problems? The Ukraine. Now if you'll get out your map, I believe you'll see that the Ukraine is not in Japan.
The alternative would have been to begin purging the main islands. The Japanese casualties would have wracked up a substantial percentage of their population instead of a couple hundred thousand, and you wouldn't be making this argument today because there wouldn't be a Japanese culture left to produce the media you consume.
If the Russians had used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan it would have provoked a response from missile sites in Europe, and set off a chain reaction that would have lead to WWIII. The Soviets understood this, the American government understood this, I understand this, and I invite you to as well. Look up Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It was the Mexican standoff the world waited on and prevented a second deployment of nuclear devices in the 20th century. For that matter the US military wanted to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam, but were prevented by this.Lupus in fabula said:p.s
I wonder what your opinion would be today if the the Russians had nuked Afghanistan in the 80's or Chechnya in the 90's. Would you have supported such as decision?