The Hiroshima Myth

[marshaul]

I am sure he already has, otherwise you would have dropped it and moved on to a different thread.

lol. You know very well you'd tell yourself I slunk off in shame with my tail between my legs had I failed to respond. :lol:

You guys are a riot.

 

[OneForAll]

lol. You know very well you'd tell yourself I slunk off in shame with my tail between my legs had I failed to respond. :lol:

You guys are a riot.

Thank you, it is good to know I can still get a chuckle out of people once in a while.

 

[carolina guy]

Russia

Why did U.S. ignore Russia's rape and pillaging and imperialism in Asia? Why did they ignore it in Eastern Europe?

Why did the US "ignore" Russian and then Soviet actions in Asia? I think that is pretty simple:

1) the US did not care because it was doing the same things in the US and other places as well.
2) There was no real way the US could have stopped it.
3) There was no real $$$ to be made trying to stop it.

Why did the US ignore what the Soviets did in Eastern Europe?
1) That is likely because there was little we could have done had we tried,
2) and real extent of the atrocities were not really known fully for years afterwards.

There was little reliable information about the Holodomor for a few years, and likely, many governments did not want to really believe that genocide of this scale was possible in Europe at the time

 

[Deanimator]

So it comes down to degree of aggression? The U.S. crimes weren't as bad?

Precisely... unless you're arguing that unless one is morally PERFECT, one has no right to defend oneself.

So, are YOU morally perfect? If not, what right do you have to use force to resist a robber, or indeed a murderer?

If somebody takes you hostage after committing a multiple murder, why would they surrender "unconditionally"?

I can see the point and how it could relate to the the topic at hand that Z had a right to use force to repel the attack from M and agree, but Z didn't go shoot M's family to make him stop.

Trayvon Martin's family didn't barricade him and themselves in their house and raid the other houses in the neighborhood. If they had, the police would have shot them too.

I am not ignoring that at all but if that was the justification, why did U.S. gov ignore Russia's crimes?

They DIDN'T ignore it, just as they didn't ignore the crimes of the Japanese.

The difference was the Russians, neither tsarists nor soviets, were stupid enough to BOMB PEARL HARBOR.

The United States didn't bomb Japan on December 7th, 1941. It was the other way 'round. If United States NON-MILITARY sanctions against Japan "justified" the Pearl Harbor attack, does that mean that the Arab oil embargoes justified an attack by the United States on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Are you, like so many ultra-rightwing Japanese and neo-Nazis, arguing that the United States had a DUTY to ASSIST the Japanese attack on China? If your neighbor decides he wants to commit a home invasion, robbery, rapes and murders on the family across the street, does he have a right to attack YOU if you refuse to sell him ammunition?

We have no duty to trade with ANYBODY, and certainly NOT at gunpoint.

 

[Deanimator]

You're absolutely evading.

To quote Mandy Patinkin in "The Princess Bride", "I do not think that word means what you think it does."

 

[Deanimator]

Folks have argued that we should avoid the sorts of entanglements which caused friction with Japan in the first place, and necessitated all this crap.

No, what you are arguing is that we had a DUTY to ASSIST the Japanese in invading China and engaging in slavery and genocide.

NO such duty existed then. NO such duty exists now.

Admittedly, ultra-rightwing Japanese and neo-Nazis disagree.

 

[Deanimator]

This is a straw man and misleading vividness, not to mention an emotional appeal. The rape of Nanking was not perpetrated on American soil or against American citizens.

And yet again, we see that all of this swill and gibberish is premised on an imaginary DUTY of the United States to HELP the Japanese invade China, and engage in slavery and genocide by SUPPLYING their efforts, unaccompanied by any DUTY of the Japanese NOT to engage in aggressive war, slavery and genocide in the first place.

And one MORE time for the slow kids:

The United States did NOT bomb Japan conventionally and with nuclear weapons because Japan attacked China.

Japan bombed the United States because it wouldn't HELP Japan attack China.

The United States had NO duty to trade with Japan, much less to HELP them commit genocide.

The United States CRUSHED Japan because they attacked US.

There was NO military action against Japan UNTIL Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese.

They reaped their reward for that attack in Nagoya, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and a dozen other places.

 

[marshaul]

No, what you are arguing is that we had a DUTY to ASSIST the Japanese in invading China and engaging in slavery and genocide.

Is there a word for a straw man of such epic proportions, that "straw man" doesn't begin to describe it?

There are a couple other fallacies in there, too, but they are the same as I've already pointed out.

 

[marshaul]

And yet again, we see that all of this swill and gibberish is premised on an imaginary DUTY of the United States to HELP the Japanese invade China, and engage in slavery and genocide by SUPPLYING their efforts, unaccompanied by any DUTY of the Japanese NOT to engage in aggressive war, slavery and genocide in the first place.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly through all the vitriol and emotional appeals, you're not arguing that failure to intervene is tantamount to helping the Japanese, you're actually arguing that the Japanese directly and explicitly asked us for help in invading China, and attacked us for failing to assist in this regard?

If this is your position, you're going to need to defend this assertion with concrete citations.

If you're referring to trade sanctions, there is a difference between refusing to sell our exports to Japan, and actively embargoing Japanese trade with the rest of the world. This isn't merely "refusing to assist", it's actively opposing their interests.

 

[Deanimator]

Is there a word for a straw man of such epic proportions, that "straw man" doesn't begin to describe it?

There are are three: "everything you've said".

You have no "argument" worthy of the name, just endlessly repeated talking points that were old the first time I heard a neo-Nazi or ultra-rightwing Japanese fanatic vomit them forth.

I am NEVER going to let you get away with your sheer rubbish that us refusing to trade with somebody justifies military action.

If the Japanese had the RIGHT to attack us because we refused to sell them oil, then we have EXACTLY the same right with regards to OPEC.

 

[Deanimator]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly through all the vitriol and emotional appeals, you're not arguing that failure to intervene is tantamount to helping the Japanese, you're actually arguing that the Japanese directly and explicitly asked us for help in invading China, and attacked us for failing to assist in this regard?

If this is your position, you're going to need to defend this assertion with concrete citations.

See, you demonstrate the failure that is our public school system.

The Japanese needed oil to continue slaughtering the Chinese.

We refused to sell them that oil.

They ATTACKED us.

We didn't "intervene".

We refused to HELP the Japanese.

They attacked us for it.

In return we stomped them into the ground like an angry cape buffalo. And they deserved EVERY bit of it.

Now, go ahead and explain that DUTY we had to sell them oil so that they could commit aggressive war, slavery and genocide.

 

[marshaul]

Now, go ahead and explain that DUTY we had to sell them oil so that they could commit aggressive war, slavery and genocide.

Again with the same fallacies. Are you even capable of making an argument which isn't replete with errors of logic?

Your misleading attempt to simplify the issue will not get past me, as my education isn't a result of public schooling (you might try knowing something about a person before you attempt such ad hominem attacks).

Your attempt to oversimplify the situation into "having a duty to supply the Japanese with oil" is an emotional appeal designed to divert attention from the full scope of US sanctions against Japan. We did far, far more than simply refuse to sell them our goods. We actively enforced an international trade embargo against them.

You need to try much, much harder.

 

[Deanimator]

Your misleading attempt to simplify the issue will not get past me, as my education isn't a result of public schooling (you might try knowing something about a person before you attempt such ad hominem attacks).

Dear god in heaven, you didn't PAY for that "education", DID you???

Your attempt to oversimplify the situation into "having a duty to supply the Japanese with oil" is an emotional appeal designed to divert attention from the full scope of US sanctions against Japan. We did far, far more than simply refuse to sell them our goods. We actively enforced an international trade embargo against them.

And this "international trade embargo" involved what MILITARY FORCE? Oh yeah, NONE.

Once again, you posit a RIGHT to use military force because somebody refuses to TRADE with you.

So, you supported an invasion of Saudi Arabia during the Arab oil embargo, RIGHT?

You need to try much, much harder.

WHY???

I don't need to build a 50 megaton hydrogen bomb to swat a fly.

Your repeated assertions that a refusal to trade justifies TOTAL WAR, but that slavery, genocide and human vivisection DON'T is just so... precious.

 

[marshaul]

Once again, you posit a RIGHT to use military force because somebody refuses to TRADE with you.

Again, a blatant straw man. We did far more than simply refuse to trade with Japan.

And furthermore, I have never justified what Japan did. I have never once said the US was wrong to declare war on Japan subsequent to Pearl Harbor. I have never advocated for a right to use military force because someone refuses to trade.

I have done nothing more than to suggest that the war was contrary to the wishes to the American people, and that the government should perhaps not have been doing all that embargoing which led to war – however just – in the first place.

Just because you have the right to piss a guy off and then defend yourself when he predictably attacks you, doesn't mean that's a good way to manage foreign relations.

So, all your crap about how I support rape and invasions of Saudi Arabia is just another emotional appeal, not to mention misleading vividness. It has nothing to do with anything I've said.

By the way, you started right off the bat with another ad hominem attack. For someone with such a world-class education, you're evidently quite insecure in your arguments.

 

[marshaul]

Your repeated assertions that a refusal to trade justifies TOTAL WAR, but that slavery, genocide and human vivisection DON'T is just so... precious.

This is being seriously close to an outright lie.

Prove the assertion. Quote me once saying anything which even approximates justifying "total war" over refusal to trade.

 

[OneForAll]

Again, a blatant straw man. We did far more than simply refuse to trade with Japan.

And furthermore, I have never justified what Japan did. I have never once said the US was wrong to declare war on Japan subsequent to Pearl Harbor. I have never advocated for a right to use military force because someone refuses to trade.

I have done nothing more than to suggest that the war was contrary to the wishes to the American people, and the government should have been doing all that embargoing which led to war – however just – in the first place.

By the way, you started right off the bat with another ad hominem attack. For someone with such a world-class education, you're evidently quite insecure in your arguments.

What about the record enlistment after Pearl Harbor?

Before the war ended, well over 16 million men and women were enrolled in the armed forces, over 12 percent of the total U.S. population at the time.
Of the 16 million people in uniform –
1 million were African Americans
44,500 were Native Americans
11,000 were Japanese-Americans
250,000 were women.
Most of the rest – over 14 million – were Caucasian males

Not to mention how many people lied about their age to enlist.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/life_02.html

Yes, we wanted to remain neutral before Dec. 7th, but not on the 8th.
So how is it again our government forced us into this war?

You just can not handle being wrong. That is why your one of few still trying to argue your misconception of what actually happen.

 

[marshaul]

What about the record enlistment after Pearl Harbor?

Before the war ended, well over 16 million men and women were enrolled in the armed forces, over 12 percent of the total U.S. population at the time.
Of the 16 million people in uniform –
1 million were African Americans
44,500 were Native Americans
11,000 were Japanese-Americans
250,000 were women.
Most of the rest – over 14 million – were Caucasian males

Not to mention how many people lied about their age to enlist.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/life_02.html

Yes, we wanted to remain neutral before Dec. 7th, but not on the 8th.
So how is it again our government forced us into this war?

You just can not handle being wrong. That is why your one of few still trying to argue your misconception of what actually happen.

The reason nobody else is arguing the point is the same reason I should have never entered this thread; the OP's article (which I only skimmed) established quite the wrong tone.

I never said the US government forced us into war. I said the government didn't do as much to avoid it as it should have. I don't really give a damn what was said in the article from the OP, because it's not my opinion.

Of course everybody wanted to enlist after Pearl Harbor – we were attacked. I mean, duh.

But that's the whole point. If the US government can act with impunity overseas, it can take overt steps which predictably increase the likelihood of war, rendering popular opposition to war moot.

What I'm saying is, the fact that the people of the US wanted peace before Pearl Harbor is enough reason to avoid overseas interventionism.

If popular opposition to war isn't enough to inspire the government to avoid actively making enemies, then popular opposition to war is irrelevant, for the government can manipulate a war regardless (this is not the same as forcing us into war). The Göring quote is quite apropos:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Zimmerman was not just acquitted based on reasonable doubt. According to some of the jurors, the defense flat proved self-defense. It was not just a matter of the prosecution failing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. At best, there would be reasonable doubt regarding Martin, but I suspect that, had he survived, he would have been convicted of assault and possibly attempted murder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Sigh......

I didn't say he was, reread what I wrote.

 

[eye95]

Nope. You made your point. I made mine.

Moving on to discussions with other folks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[77zach]

What about the record enlistment after Pearl Harbor?

Before the war ended, well over 16 million men and women were enrolled in the armed forces, over 12 percent of the total U.S. population at the time.
Of the 16 million people in uniform –
1 million were African Americans
44,500 were Native Americans
11,000 were Japanese-Americans
250,000 were women.
Most of the rest – over 14 million – were Caucasian males

Not to mention how many people lied about their age to enlist.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/life_02.html

Yes, we wanted to remain neutral before Dec. 7th, but not on the 8th.
So how is it again our government forced us into this war?

You just can not handle being wrong. That is why your one of few still trying to argue your misconception of what actually happen.

What did average American gain by entering World War 2, in your estimation? Are you one of those who believe we'd all be "speaking German" or "speaking Japanese" had the U.S .gov not entered?