Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Andrew1975 wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:So the Japanese didn't show themselves to be monsters? Your argument is delusional.

And yours ignores facts

What facts am I ignoring. I've given my facts, you have decided to ignore them. The rape of nanking is a fact! The bataan death march is a fact. Pearl harbor is a fact. Kamikazes are a fact.

What have you got? "ohhhhh, but they were still people". Then they should have acted like humans instead of wicked monsters!

Well that explains a bit. If you can't seperate the Japanese Military acting overseas to that of the Japanese populace, no wonder your points have come across as so flawed.

You can't separate the two either. The Japanese made no distinction. The problem was not just the military but a cultural phenomenon that embraced the killing of all none Japanese. How do you get rid of that without forcing civilians to see the error of their ways?

As I said American slavery was unaffected by the English abolition. The slave population was self sustaining by that period. Also why would they keep doing it up to 1860.

Keep doing what? Slavery? I suppose the US could have restructured their whole agricultural production in less time, seeing as that was they only way they knew, the way our European forefathers had been doing it in the colonies for hundreds of years. Yeah I guess those kind of things get changes overnight all the time. Not to mention that the only reason the British really changes their tune was to be a thorn in our side. I suppose that was really intensive to change.

The fact is the US abolished Slavery in the US on it's own. We were not forced to. Americans for decades had said it was against all that America stood for.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You can't separate the two either.

So about this Nam thing...

Actually, screw that. If you follow that crazyland logic then things like 9/11 become justified.

The Japanese made no distinction.

Sure they did. They didn't do so out of compassion, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that armed combatants and civilians were treated as equal threats. No need to kill that which could be controlled. Unlike how the Holocaust was designed in a way that could eventually actually kill of the Jewish race, Japan sought to establish their supremacy over the Chinese, not to exterminate them entirely.

It doesn't make their actions any better (at all) but they did make a distinction.

The problem was not just the military but a cultural phenomenon that embraced the killing of all none Japanese. How do you get rid of that without forcing civilians to see the error of their ways?

There was a culture of expansionism, yes, and also a feeling that Japanese people were just in general better than other people. It's hardly unique.

Of course it wasn't some moral crusade; it was a military struggle against an aggressor nation who, when beaten to a bloody pulp, expected to negotiate and keep their ill-gotten gains, and for their current regime to remain safe and in power, in addition to not being occupied or disarmed. It would have been extremely unethical to accept anything less than unconditional surrender, because they would have rebuilt and gone right back to doing as they had. The nuclear bombs were the only way to secure that, and as has been previously discussed, most of the people killed by them were dead either way, and the bombs were a far sight kinder than subjecting them to an invasion, where they'd starve and throw themselves into the sights of American or Soviet guns, or take their lives/be killed by Japanese soldiers rather than surrender.

Actually, screw that. If you follow that crazyland logic then things like 9/11 become justified.

I've already covered 911, please read the post.

Sure they did. They didn't do so out of compassion, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that armed combatants and civilians were treated as equal threats. No need to kill that which could be controlled. Unlike how the Holocaust was designed in a way that could eventually actually kill of the Jewish race, Japan sought to establish their supremacy over the Chinese, not to exterminate them entirely.

It doesn't make their actions any better (at all) but they did make a distinction.

Rape of Nanking! RAPE OF NANKING! RAPE OF NANKING!If you were not completely submissive they killed you! If you looked at them the wrong way they killed you. If they thought it would be fun they would kill you.

There was a culture of expansionism, yes, and also a feeling that Japanese people were just in general better than other people. It's hardly unique.

HOLY COW! You can not deny that the Japanese army acted completely belligerently to everyone and anyone they came across! They acted this was because that is how they were raised! That is what their culture demanded.

Andrew1975 wrote:

As I said American slavery was unaffected by the English abolition. The slave population was self sustaining by that period. Also why would they keep doing it up to 1860.

Keep doing what? Slavery? I suppose the US could have restructured their whole agricultural production in less time, seeing as that was they only way they knew, the way our European forefathers had been doing it in the colonies for hundreds of years. Yeah I guess those kind of things get changes overnight all the time. Not to mention that the only reason the British really changes their tune was to be a thorn in our side. I suppose that was really intensive to change.

The fact is the US abolished Slavery in the US on it's own. We were not forced to. Americans for decades had said it was against all that America stood for.

No the british and and the west african squadron

Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard.[3] Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.[4]
In the 1860s, David Livingstone's reports of atrocities within the Arab slave trade in Africa stirred up the interest of the British public, reviving the flagging abolitionist movement. The Royal Navy throughout the 1870s attempted to suppress "this abominable Eastern trade", at Zanzibar in particular. In 1890 Britain handed control of the strategically important island of Heligoland in the North Sea to Germany in return for control of Zanzibar, in part to help enforce the ban on slave trading.[5][6]

Also if it disrupted the american economy so mush then WHY DI WE DO IT TO

We also abolished the African slave trade in 1808

Double post

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Of course it wasn't some moral crusade;

Tell it to the other guy. ^

it was a military struggle against an aggressor nation who, when beaten to a bloody pulp, expected to negotiate and keep their ill-gotten gains, and for their current regime to remain safe and in power, in addition to not being occupied or disarmed. It would have been extremely unethical to accept anything less than unconditional surrender, because they would have rebuilt and gone right back to doing as they had.

Why would it be unethical to accept a conditional surrender if it would save lives? Where do you get the authority that Japan would have instantly rebuilt their forces with the sole intent of 'another go'?

The nuclear bombs were the only way to secure that, and as has been previously discussed, most of the people killed by them were dead either way, and the bombs were a far sight kinder than subjecting them to an invasion, where they'd starve and throw themselves into the sights of American or Soviet guns, or take their lives/be killed by Japanese soldiers rather than surrender.

It's already been suggested in response to this that Japan was more motivated by Russian invasion rather than the bombing.

Also if it disrupted the american economy so mush then WHY DI WE DO IT TO

Really. Read my posts would you? Jeez.

It's already been suggested in response to this that Japan was more motivated by Russian invasion rather than the bombing.

It's also been submitted that it would have been preferred by many to have the Russian invasion as it allowed then to die honorably in battle! America was mare afraid of the Russian invasion of Japan than most of the Japanese war council was.

Also if it disrupted the american economy so mush then WHY DI WE DO IT TO

Stupidity?

The government is ever so stupid until we talk about WWII.

Andrew1975 wrote:snip

You might want to calm down, losing one's temper only undermines one's points.

youbedead wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

As I said American slavery was unaffected by the English abolition. The slave population was self sustaining by that period. Also why would they keep doing it up to 1860.

Keep doing what? Slavery? I suppose the US could have restructured their whole agricultural production in less time, seeing as that was they only way they knew, the way our European forefathers had been doing it in the colonies for hundreds of years. Yeah I guess those kind of things get changes overnight all the time. Not to mention that the only reason the British really changes their tune was to be a thorn in our side. I suppose that was really intensive to change.

The fact is the US abolished Slavery in the US on it's own. We were not forced to. Americans for decades had said it was against all that America stood for.

No the british and and the west african squadron

Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard.[3] Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.[4]
In the 1860s, David Livingstone's reports of atrocities within the Arab slave trade in Africa stirred up the interest of the British public, reviving the flagging abolitionist movement. The Royal Navy throughout the 1870s attempted to suppress "this abominable Eastern trade", at Zanzibar in particular. In 1890 Britain handed control of the strategically important island of Heligoland in the North Sea to Germany in return for control of Zanzibar, in part to help enforce the ban on slave trading.[5][6]

Also if it disrupted the american economy so mush then WHY DI WE DO IT TO

We also abolished the African slave trade in 1808

You act as though abolishing the specific terms of slavery was some great achievement, when it was simply succeeded by systems as bad or worse, just lacking the philosophical stain of the word. Up until the twentieth century the working class lived in conditions as bad or worse than slaves had. Worse in that employers no longer had to pay as much as food and housing cost, and if a worker were killed or mangled on the job it was an occasion for joy, as that meant they didn't have to be payed, since it's not like they had to pay some high fee to hire them to start with. The only difference between slaves and workers under Victorian Era Industrial Capitalism, aside from the aforementioned "slaves being expensive property and workers being disposable pests" view, was one of semantics and philosophy; the worker was more expendable and cheaper to keep, with no more actual freedom, but he was free in name, and could theoretically self-determine his actions, were he payed more and given access to an education that enabled him to, and not maimed on the job.

Andrew wrote:I've already covered 911, please read the post.

A dozen pages of this stuff to look back through? fething hell...

Rape of Nanking! RAPE OF NANKING! RAPE OF NANKING! They didn't care who you were! If you were not completely submissive they killed you! If you looked at them the wrong way they killed you. If they thought it would be fun they would kill you.

Maybe you didn't read that their distinction didn't make their atrocities any better (in fact it makes it worse). But you can't argue that they DID make a distinction between military and civilian. Pretty much everyone does except you.

HOLY COW! You can not deny that the Japanese army acted completely belligerently to everyone and anyone they came across! They acted this was because that is how they were raised! That is what their culture demanded.

Broad sweeps of a brush? How can you label every Japanese man, woman, and child as beasts?

Why the hell should the civilian populace of any country be held to suffer for the actions of their military or government?

I wasn't aware that I had lost my temper. Where did you get that. I may have been frustrated that people don't read.

Broad sweeps of a brush? How can you label every Japanese man, woman, and child as beasts?

Why the hell should the civilian populace of any country be held to suffer for the actions of their military or government?

Because it wasn't the military of the government that allows soldiers to go psyco like the Japanese. It's a culture that produces that!

Maybe you didn't read that their distinction didn't make their atrocities any better (in fact it makes it worse). But you can't argue that they DID make a distinction between military and civilian. Pretty much everyone does except you.

What distinction did they make. If you were a soldier they would kill you. If you surrendered they would kill you. If you were a civilian they would kill you for fun. Where is the distinction?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:snip

You might want to calm down, losing one's temper only undermines one's points.

youbedead wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

As I said American slavery was unaffected by the English abolition. The slave population was self sustaining by that period. Also why would they keep doing it up to 1860.

Keep doing what? Slavery? I suppose the US could have restructured their whole agricultural production in less time, seeing as that was they only way they knew, the way our European forefathers had been doing it in the colonies for hundreds of years. Yeah I guess those kind of things get changes overnight all the time. Not to mention that the only reason the British really changes their tune was to be a thorn in our side. I suppose that was really intensive to change.

The fact is the US abolished Slavery in the US on it's own. We were not forced to. Americans for decades had said it was against all that America stood for.

No the british and and the west african squadron

Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard.[3] Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.[4]
In the 1860s, David Livingstone's reports of atrocities within the Arab slave trade in Africa stirred up the interest of the British public, reviving the flagging abolitionist movement. The Royal Navy throughout the 1870s attempted to suppress "this abominable Eastern trade", at Zanzibar in particular. In 1890 Britain handed control of the strategically important island of Heligoland in the North Sea to Germany in return for control of Zanzibar, in part to help enforce the ban on slave trading.[5][6]

Also if it disrupted the american economy so mush then WHY DI WE DO IT TO

We also abolished the African slave trade in 1808

You act as though abolishing the specific terms of slavery was some great achievement, when it was simply succeeded by systems as bad or worse, just lacking the philosophical stain of the word. Up until the twentieth century the working class lived in conditions as bad or worse than slaves had. Worse in that employers no longer had to pay as much as food and housing cost, and if a worker were killed or mangled on the job it was an occasion for joy, as that meant they didn't have to be payed, since it's not like they had to pay some high fee to hire them to start with. The only difference between slaves and workers under Victorian Era Industrial Capitalism, aside from the aforementioned "slaves being expensive property and workers being disposable pests" view, was one of semantics and philosophy; the worker was more expendable and cheaper to keep, with no more actual freedom, but he was free in name, and could theoretically self-determine his actions, were he payed more and given access to an education that enabled him to, and not maimed on the job.

I merely trying to demonstrate that America did not cause the Europeans to end slavery. I am well aware of the reemergence of indentured servitude that followed abolition and the way that Victorian era factories treated workers, both the foreign factories in India, Japan, and china in addition to the immigrants in the western countries.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Of course it wasn't some moral crusade;

Tell it to the other guy. ^

That was directed at him, and I suppose anyone else to whom it may apply.

it was a military struggle against an aggressor nation who, when beaten to a bloody pulp, expected to negotiate and keep their ill-gotten gains, and for their current regime to remain safe and in power, in addition to not being occupied or disarmed. It would have been extremely unethical to accept anything less than unconditional surrender, because they would have rebuilt and gone right back to doing as they had.

Why would it be unethical to accept a conditional surrender if it would save lives? Where do you get the authority that Japan would have instantly rebuilt their forces with the sole intent of 'another go'?

There is more to the ethics of running a nation than lives and numbers; Japan's actions were unacceptable, and what they got was a far sight kinder than what they brought into their conquests; allowing those who presided over said conquests to retain power was not an option, any more than allowing the nazis to remain in power had Germany surrendered would have been.

The nuclear bombs were the only way to secure that, and as has been previously discussed, most of the people killed by them were dead either way, and the bombs were a far sight kinder than subjecting them to an invasion, where they'd starve and throw themselves into the sights of American or Soviet guns, or take their lives/be killed by Japanese soldiers rather than surrender.

It's already been suggested in response to this that Japan was more motivated by Russian invasion rather than the bombing.

They knew Russia was building up forces to invade. They knew we were readying an invasion. They only surrendered after the annihilation of two cities, and the firebombing of many others. I don't believe concerns over an invasion, which they could fight and inflict losses upon, were anywhere near as much of a concern as an existential threat to their entire nation, and one which put no American soldiers within their grasp.

I merely trying to demonstrate that America did not cause the Europeans to end slavery

Who ever said the US ended European slavery? I sure didn't! I said we ended slavery in the US. It's called reading comprehension.

I also never said it was soley a moral crusade. But that ended up being a part of it. Had the Japanese fought with morals we would have never had to drop the bombs.

Andrew1975 wrote:

So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?

The British may not be responsible for establishing the slave, but they sure as hell perfected it with the triangle routes! Slavery was started in the colonies by Europeans. If anything you can see growth of American ideas was a reason for it's abolition.

Seriously, make sure you know what you're typing

youbedead wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?

The British may not be responsible for establishing the slave, but they sure as hell perfected it with the triangle routes! Slavery was started in the colonies by Europeans. If anything you can see growth of American ideas was a reason for it's abolition.

Seriously, make sure you know what you're typing

If anything you can see growth of American ideas was a reason for it's abolition.

IN AMERICA. Do we really have to spell everything out It's called contextual reading. Everybody knows that US had slavery longer than Europe. I had already admitted as such in the post and explained why we still had it even though the British had abolished it.

Andrew1975 wrote:I wasn't aware that I had lost my temper. Where did you get that. I may have been frustrated that people don't read.

I did not mean to imply you had, only to caution against doing so.

A dozen pages of this stuff to look back through? fething hell...

It's actually considered inconsiderate to just jump in a tread without reading the past arguments.

Oh missed this one.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:80K? That's a fair bit bigger than the other numbers I've heard.

But we need to get this straight, you do know that prostitution is part of sex trafficking, right? And that some/a lot of those women really didn't want to be trafficked? And wouldn't have if the US didn't occupy Japan.

You really don't know what the Rape of Nanking actually entailed, do you? I'll give you a hint, it's only "Rape of Nanking" because "Nanking Happy Fun Round Up Every Local You Can Find Then Torture the Men to Death and Rape the Women and Children Before Torturing Them to Death Too Time" is kind of a mouthful.

I think I already made an answer to it with several posts like this one.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Sir Psuedonymous: Is this a numbers game? Andrew demanded that I show him any instance where the Allies committed War Crimes.

I can't possibly condone the Holocaust (and have no wish to), but that doesn't mean I'd condone Dresden, or nuking Munich.

So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?

You don't seem to get the whole "that was an entirely different country and culture than even the America of the early twentieth century" thing. A significant percent of Americans had yet to immigrate by then, and the country had yet to be twisted beyond recognition by the industrial revolution. We don't blame European countries for the crusades, or the hereditary dictatorships they had, nor do we blame the US for things Britain did prior to their secession, so it hardly makes sense to blame the actions of a loose confederacy of sovereign states on the unified nation that came later, caused by improved communication and judicial precedent.

This is shifting the blame. To say that the fate of Native Americans is not the fault of America because "things were different back then" is a poor excuse. These are actions of your country, just as the extermination of Aboriginals in Tasmania was an action of my country. THe slaughter of Native Americans was an action of your country, just as 'Aboriginal Hunting Liscences' were an action of my country. To do anything other than face up to past actions would be running away.

@Andrew: What 9/11 explanation are you talking about?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:

A dozen pages of this stuff to look back through? fething hell...

It's actually considered inconsiderate to just jump in a tread without reading the past arguments.

Apart from a page or two I have actually managed to read the whole thread. I don't relish the thought of going back and doing it again just to find a reference from you about 9/11.

So explain to me now (or get the reference yourself, seeing as you know where it is), how holding the civilians of a country to be liable to be punished for the actions of their military or government is a good thing. Because that line of thought seems to justify the attack.

If you are so interested, please feel free to look for my sig and any reference to 911. I'm not sure why I should take the time to look it up and repost and take up more space then have to do it again for the next guy that brings up 911. Just look back. It appears you are as lazy as your argument.

You also don't get it is holding civilians responsible for what the military and the government does. That not what I am saying at all. The actions of the soldiers in the Japanese army was not a product of Japanese military training as much as it was a product of Japanese culture as a whole.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Broad sweeps of a brush? How can you label every Japanese man, woman, and child as beasts?

Why the hell should the civilian populace of any country be held to suffer for the actions of their military or government?

Because it wasn't the military of the government that allows soldiers to go psyco like the Japanese. It's a culture that produces that!

What are you talking about? Of course it was the military that, through incompetence, allowed their soldiers to "go psyco".

Even the Tokyo trials (run by the Allies) didn't find evidence of Military orders to do the things they did. The cruelty of many Japanese soldiers was a result of lax in discipline. Imagine what the Allies would have been like during the occupation of Japan, if there had been a lack of discipline? (or brothels).

Maybe you didn't read that their distinction didn't make their atrocities any better (in fact it makes it worse). But you can't argue that they DID make a distinction between military and civilian. Pretty much everyone does except you.

What distinction did they make. If you were a soldier they would kill you. If you surrendered they would kill you. If you were a civilian they would kill you for fun. Where is the distinction?

If you were an armed combatant they would kill you.
If you were unarmed (combatant or no) they might kill you.

It's not a pretty at all, but there is a distinction. If there wasn't a military couldn't function in the capacity of an aggressor without completely obliterating every living human they came across, without exception, as they would be viewed as a combatant.

What are you talking about? Of course it was the military that, through incompetence, allowed their soldiers to "go psyco".

Even the Tokyo trials (run by the Allies) didn't find evidence of Military orders to do the things they did. The cruelty of many Japanese soldiers was a result of lax in discipline. Imagine what the Allies would have been like during the occupation of Japan, if there had been a lack of discipline? (or brothels).

I mean you've just made my argument for me. The military didn't train them to do that. They reverted to natural behavior and instinct. At least German soldiers were ordered to throw people into gas chambers and ovens. The Japanese did these atrocities because it was culturally acceptable.

No matter what happened you wouldn't have had masses of American soldiers running around and beheading civilians, because that is not in us. It's not culturally acceptable behavior! We curl up in horror (as we should) when we hear about My Lai, that was a small group of soldiers that killed 500 people. The fact that we are even having this argument shows that we are culturally not capable of even understanding inhumanity on that level.

It's not a pretty at all, but there is a distinction. If there wasn't a military couldn't function in the capacity of an aggressor without completely obliterating every living human they came across, without exception, as they would be viewed as a combatant.

Sort of like the rape of nanking huh?

Emperors Faithful wrote:This is shifting the blame. To say that the fate of Native Americans is not the fault of America because "things were different back then" is a poor excuse. These are actions of your country, just as the extermination of Aboriginals in Tasmania was an action of my country. THe slaughter of Native Americans was an action of your country, just as 'Aboriginal Hunting Liscences' were an action of my country. To do anything other than face up to past actions would be running away.

So then modern Germans should be considered accountable for WWI? The French for Napoleon's wars of conquest, or the bloodshed of their many revolutions? The entirety of Europe for their constant invasions of one another, or the crusades? The institutions responsible have been reformed and altered to be unrecognizable, the country itself has gone from a loose confederation of sovereign states into a single nation with an abnormal and quite undesirable level of autonomy given to its internal territorial divisions, at least some of the ancestors of a majority of modern Americans had yet to immigrate to country by then, and it had yet to undergo several complete revisions of its culture. The only connection to that era the US has is in name and general structure.

Andrew1975 wrote:

What are you talking about? Of course it was the military that, through incompetence, allowed their soldiers to "go psyco".

Even the Tokyo trials (run by the Allies) didn't find evidence of Military orders to do the things they did. The cruelty of many Japanese soldiers was a result of lax in discipline. Imagine what the Allies would have been like during the occupation of Japan, if there had been a lack of discipline? (or brothels).

I mean you've just made my argument for me. The military didn't train them to do that. They reverted to natural behavior and instinct. At least German soldiers were ordered to throw people into gas chambers and ovens. The Japanese did these atrocities because it was culturally acceptable.

Imagine US soldiers in Iraq, immediately after the victory, without discipline. Just for a second.

It's not a pretty at all, but there is a distinction. If there wasn't a military couldn't function in the capacity of an aggressor without completely obliterating every living human they came across, without exception, as they would be viewed as a combatant.

Sort of like the rape of nanking huh?

Sir

I hear what you are saying. While I don't feel responsible in any way, I do see the treatment of American Indians as a major stain on the history of the US. I also feel guilty that I think it worked out for the best. Slavery, not responsible, I do feel bad about it. Africans turned conquered Africans into slaves or just killed them. I see slavery as probably better than death and I don't think most African Americans would choose to be living in the Congo over living in the US. So maybe it again worked out the best for some people.

That being said. I don't feel guilty about dropping bombs on Japan.

Imagine US soldiers in Iraq, immediately after the victory, without discipline. Just for a second.

The fact that you even think that US soldiers would ever consider a masacre on a Japanese scale shows that you do really have contempt for the US and have little grasp on what it takes to become that kind of a killer.

What? Obliterate?

Also, I looked through the thread AND your post history, couldn't find the 9/11 argument.

If you can't see that nanking was obliterated that you are just refusing to accept the reality of the situation or just being stubborn. Really I'm about to call you obvious troll again.

If you can't find the post that's your problem, it's there look for Jesus, Osama and white supremists! It's all there.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Imagine US soldiers in Iraq, immediately after the victory, without discipline. Just for a second.

The fact that you even think that US soldiers would ever consider a masacre on a Japanese scale shows that you do really have contempt for the US and have little grasp on what it takes to become that kind of a killer.

History shows that military forces lacking in discipline are almost bound to commit atrocities. It amuses me that you think US servicemen would be the exception.

What? Obliterate?

Also, I looked through the thread AND your post history, couldn't find the 9/11 argument.

If you can't see that nanking was obliterated that you are just refusing to accept the reality of the situation of just being stubborn. Really I'm about to call you obvious troll again.

You really don't understand the meaning of obliterate do you?

If you can't find the post that's your problem, it's there look for Jesus, Osama and white supremists! It's all there.

Sums you up to a T.

Still didn't help me find it though.

Andrew1975 wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote: That America was more a left over product of European colonialism than any separate American Ideology.

Manifest Destiny is an American Ideology. Europeans never had a dedicated plan to force Native Americans off their lands like we did (EDIT: Clarification. The French and the Brits didn't. Can't say I'm well versed in Spanish, Dutch, and Portugese colonial history but then none of them can really be said to have a profound influence on American history for the relevant period).

Really? Because I'm pretty sure the first people that started killing American Indians were not Americans! I'm pretty sure the first people that lived in the 13 colonies were for the most part European! Hence the word colonies!

P.S. Let's not throw the Holocaust around. We treated the natives like crap but we didn't load them into gas chambers and kill them in the millions with the marvels of modern industry. That's two different scales of awful.

Yeah we just gave them infected blankets drove them off their land, killed all their livestock and sent them on things like the trail of tears, when we weren't just outright murdering them. We attempted to systematically wipe the indigenous people of America off the face of the planet. It was genocide and I'll continue to call it a Holocaust, thanks! We invented scalping for christ sakes, it's funny that so many think that that was an American Indian thing.

Don't talk to me about Europeans being free from what happened in the New World.
The Spanish, through disease, and destruction, effectively wiped out South America, Central America, Hispanola, and Florida. Those that survived were enslaved.
The Portugese did the same in Brazil.
The English had a clear policy of pushing the heathen out. There were none that survived.

The French, (on the continent ds was a different story, but you also have the British and Spanish mixed in there) and hold on to your seats because this never happens from me, were the "good guys." They just wanted to trade and make babies with the native vixens. Ah, the French, can't kick anyone's ass at all, but sure have their priorities straight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

Bromsy wrote:See that black blur out the corner of your eye, LordofHats? That was you being ninja'd

Son of a



EDIT: Seriously though. Small pox infect blankets is up there with the M1 Garand's ping getting GI's killed on the list of most widely believed historical BS.

It does go ping in a manly sort of way though.

@Andrew, you continue to ignore facts of history and simple truisms of human nature to support your crazy imperialst stance. You are a hypocrit because you warp your opinion around what history you cannot distort. As I have said before, if you follow your logic through a fortiori, then the 9/11 deaths where justified and ironically so were some of the horendous attrociaties committed by Japan against US soldiers. Your mind set is the exact same as those who you argue against and call monsters.

Because it wasn't the military of the government that allows soldiers to go psyco like the Japanese. It's a culture that produces that!

As someone else has pointed out, throughout history we have seen various armies committing atrocious acts without leadership. Sure a culture that places itself above others and believes itself the chosen people or whatever they want to call it will act accordingly in any given situation and the ugly side of human nature can emerge in a perfect storm, but the US and its soldiers are not exempt from this. There are some pretty fething aweful things comitted by US soldiers in Vietnam on civilians. Or do those not count as well?

How do you reconcile the US waged war on Iraq? Our state occupied a foriegn nation stating we had evidence to support our occupation when we did not. The civilian death toll from this war is put around 90k-150k depending where you are looking. The US military casulaties are nearing 6k. Oh wait, let me guess, Sadam is evil? So whatever we do is justified right?

How about the Guatamalan Coup d'etat? The US backed over throw of democratically elected government that led to series of US backed brutal dictators that caused enormous civil unrest and destabilization with almost half a century of turmoil and a death toll projected at almost 200,000.

Hell look at US behavior in Central America for the last 100 years, there have been some pretty hardcore imperliast activies there we could dissect.

Our culture in the US finds this behavoir acceptable for the most part. A large portion of this is because the standard state propaganda that is similar whether we are talking about Japan, Iraq, Iran, the Soviet Union or the US. Every citizen is indoctrinated from early on. Further, each countries media is spun in favor of the state as are our history books. This is a natural function of the government protecting itself. Every person is responsible for their actions but you conviently ignore the roll of government and even our natural inclination in smoothing over the rough edges of any given unpleasant situation or looking the other way, not to condone the actions but for self preservation. Instead you favor of labeling citizens in another culture as monsters.

I have not found one person on this thread who puts the lives of their soldiers below the lives of the enemy as you continue to imply. That would be nonsense.

Edit: spelling, sorry typing on phone...may be more spelling errors

I love how quickly this thread went into America evil mode. Its almost like it started out like that.