Happy Hiroshima Day!

[BostonBeaneater]

The point that I'm making is that civilians of any nationality have moral status, and that moral status is of a different kind from soldiers, officers, and government officials who are involved directly in war. This is the same point recognized by the laws of war.

I agree. I just think it is easy to come up with answers that make us feel morally good about these questions 65 years later from the comfort of our homes or offices. I bristle when I hear people critisize seemingly morally wrong acts committed by the military without really putting yourself in their shoes. I like to think of the soldiers on Okinawa who were to be sent to Japan.

[eumaas]

The point that I'm making is that civilians of any nationality have moral status, and that moral status is of a different kind from soldiers, officers, and government officials who are involved directly in war. This is the same point recognized by the laws of war.

I agree. I just think it is easy to come up with answers that make us feel morally good about these questions 65 years later from the comfort of our homes or offices. I bristle when I hear people critisize seemingly morally wrong acts committed by the military without really putting yourself in their shoes. I like to think of the soldiers on Okinawa who were to be sent to Japan.

So with that in mind, how can you criticize the actions of the Japanese military? If you had to be there, then you're just as illegitimate in decrying those acts as atrocities.

[BostonBeaneater]

The point that I'm making is that civilians of any nationality have moral status, and that moral status is of a different kind from soldiers, officers, and government officials who are involved directly in war. This is the same point recognized by the laws of war.

I agree. I just think it is easy to come up with answers that make us feel morally good about these questions 65 years later from the comfort of our homes or offices. I bristle when I hear people critisize seemingly morally wrong acts committed by the military without really putting yourself in their shoes. I like to think of the soldiers on Okinawa who were to be sent to Japan.

So with that in mind, how can you criticize the actions of the Japanese military? If you had to be there, then you're just as illegitimate in decrying those acts as atrocities.

I am unashamedly bias towards the America cause.

[eumaas]

The point that I'm making is that civilians of any nationality have moral status, and that moral status is of a different kind from soldiers, officers, and government officials who are involved directly in war. This is the same point recognized by the laws of war.

I agree. I just think it is easy to come up with answers that make us feel morally good about these questions 65 years later from the comfort of our homes or offices. I bristle when I hear people critisize seemingly morally wrong acts committed by the military without really putting yourself in their shoes. I like to think of the soldiers on Okinawa who were to be sent to Japan.

So with that in mind, how can you criticize the actions of the Japanese military? If you had to be there, then you're just as illegitimate in decrying those acts as atrocities.

I am unashamedly bias towards the America cause.

So if the Japanese hadn't committed atrocities, you would've supported dropping the bomb anyway?

Why bring up their atrocities at all, then?

[BostonBeaneater]

So if the Japanese hadn't committed atrocities, you would've supported dropping the bomb anyway?

Why bring up their atrocities at all, then?

It's actually less about the atrocities and more about the fact that the Japanese did not have quit in them. They fought to the death and demostrated so with viciousness throughout the Pacific war. Why would anyone expect differently should the US have landed on Japanese soil?

[eumaas]

It's actually less about the atrocities and more about the fact that the Japanese did not have quit in them.

I don't see any way of construing that point out of this post:

Let's give days of rememberance to the millions who were robbed, raped, and murdered by the Japanese Empire between 1930 and 1945 first.

It seems more like you're retreating into relativism to justify an act when the logical implications of your opinions have been revealed to be either inconsistent or ugly or both.

They fought to the death and demostrated so with viciousness throughout the Pacific war. Why would anyone expect differently should the US have landed on Japanese soil?

Why do you believe that invasion was necessary?

[BostonBeaneater]

Why do you believe that invasion was necessary?

How could it not be?

[eumaas]

Why do you believe that invasion was necessary?

How could it not be?

I've produced quotations from US officials, both government and military, who believed that surrender was on the table and that the blockade was proving particularly effective, and that neither invasion nor nuclear strike were necessary. Some have also suggested conventional bombing was effective. Why do you discount their opinion?

[eumaas]

Actually, you've acknowledged that surrender was on the table, by acknowledging that in your view Truman was right to push for unconditional surrender.

[BostonBeaneater]

Why do you believe that invasion was necessary?

How could it not be?

I've produced quotations from US officials, both government and military, who believed that surrender was on the table and that the blockade was proving particularly effective, and that neither invasion nor nuclear strike were necessary. Some have also suggested conventional bombing was effective. Why do you discount their opinion?

I don't. Were those quotes from July 1945? We think in the moment.

[eumaas]

Why do you believe that invasion was necessary?

How could it not be?

I've produced quotations from US officials, both government and military, who believed that surrender was on the table and that the blockade was proving particularly effective, and that neither invasion nor nuclear strike were necessary. Some have also suggested conventional bombing was effective. Why do you discount their opinion?

I don't. Were those quotes from July 1945? We think in the moment.

Do you rape any woman you find attractive and kill any man who annoys you?

[BostonBeaneater]

Actually, you've acknowledged that surrender was on the table, by acknowledging that in your view Truman was right to push for unconditional surrender.

Do you have Japanese quotes that say surrender was on the table? Quotes from 1945? Everyone frames things as they wish after the fact.

[BostonBeaneater]

Do you rape any woman you find attractive and kill any man who annoys you?

No, but the Japanese did. I think that counts for something. Nanking counts for the character of our enemy.

[eumaas]

Actually, you've acknowledged that surrender was on the table, by acknowledging that in your view Truman was right to push for unconditional surrender.

Do you have Japanese quotes that say surrender was on the table? Quotes from 1945? Everyone frames things as they wish after the fact.

Nope. So they're lying? What about the opinion of dissenting Americans? Was MacArthur lying too?

[eumaas]

Do you rape any woman you find attractive and kill any man who annoys you?

No, but the Japanese did. I think that counts for something. Nanking counts for the character of our enemy.

Yeah, but on your argument they were within their rights to rape and murder as they pleased. When you condemn it, you aren't thinking in the moment.

Unless you acknowledge that we actually have a choice in our actions (as when you refrain from raping women and striking men), in which case your in the moment argument is nonsense.