|
VitalSigns posted:Getting Spain to withdraw from Iraq was a legitimate military goal, so the Madrid train station attacks were justified. Apparently. How many people was Spain killing in Iraq?
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:This is kind of a stretch though. By that rationality kidnapping 100 civilians and leaving their headless bodies hanging from bridges is a legimate military end If its 100 nazis or imperial japanese, it is!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:If demonstrations of willingness and capability for violence are legitimate as military action where do we draw the line? Demonstrations of willingness and capability for violence is basically the entire point of war at any level. yamomami raiding parties to scalpings to village burnings to WW2 bombings to drone strikes to ISIS beheadings. Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Demonstrations of willingness and capability for violence is basically the entire point of war at any level. So then all terrorism is legitimate as military action?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So then all terrorism is legitimate as military action? Only when done by us, the good guys
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yes, nobody wants to accuse the japanese of being too rational You have to ignore all documentary evidence, as well as that of the Nazis, to ascribe the actions of the government to coldly rational decision-making. It wasn't, and that you need to try to accuse that as being racist demonstrates what a weak position that is. The Nazis were far less rational when it came to surrender - likely, because they had no figurehead like the Emperor who could sack Hitler. People aren't coldly rational and the wars were being waged by small groups of people and the decision to surrender lay with small groups of people. You need to look at the actual people involved to understand what happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:Well if that nazis did it then it's definitely ok. Shoulda gassed those japs instead of just locking them in. Everyone did it. That doesn't make it right. But that's what happened buttercup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So basically the only principled limitation on the use of violence is the practical ability to use it? And the theoretical effectiveness of the violence. Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:People aren't coldly rational and the wars were being waged by small groups of people and the decision to surrender lay with small groups of people. You need to look at the actual people involved to understand what happened. yes, and when we look at the actual people involved we can see that they were far more concerned with the USSR than with the atomic bombs. you keep ignoring this because it doesn't fit your argument you're sticking to this argument that the japanese were more irrational than the nazis based on _______________? so it's odd for you to bring up documentary evidence when you don't have any
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:If demonstrations of willingness and capability for violence are legitimate as military action where do we draw the line? At the demonstrations that bring a less quick end to the war than the lives they cost justify, but I don't know why you want me to state that tautology out loud.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Miltank posted:There is literally no difference between terrorism and military action. So basically the only principled limitation on the use of violence is the practical ability to use it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Everyone did it. That doesn't make it right. But that's what happened buttercup. Yeah, you don't have a war where 80 million people die, 1/2 of them civilians, and there isn't massive amounts of war crimes going down. So again, why the gently caress are Hiroshima and Nagasaki special?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:How many people was Spain killing in Iraq? It was part of a war effort that killed 150,000 civilians (conservatively estimated), the Madrid train bombings only killed 191 people. Now you could say "oh but Spain wasn't responsible for all the deaths of the war they were fighting (probably more than 191 though!) but how many deaths was a Japanese schoolchild in Nagasaki responsible for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:So then all terrorism is legitimate as military action? The only difference between terrorism and military action is the nation-state-hood (or lack of which) of the perpetrators.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:At the demonstrations that bring a less quick end to the war than the lives they cost justify, but I don't know why you want me to state that tautology out loud. So there is a clear definition of how and why you draw boundaries between actions. Its important to have a clear idea of exactly where a person stands if you are going to discuss something this controversial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
I just want to know where in the tens of millions of civilian deaths during wwII do the few hundred thousand nuke deaths rank on the shame list. I need to know how much I should hate the countries who stopped Tojo & Hitler. Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Yeah, you don't have a war where 80 million people die, 1/2 of them civilians, and there isn't massive amounts of war crimes going down. I've answered this boring-rear end question several times: no one is defending the other war crimes thus there's no controversy thus no argument over it. You're welcome to start a new thread of you really really want to get a good debate going on whether the Rape of Nanking was, in fact, bad?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You have to ignore all documentary evidence, as well as that of the Nazis, to ascribe the actions of the government to coldly rational decision-making. It wasn't, and that you need to try to accuse that as being racist demonstrates what a weak position that is. The Nazis were far less rational when it came to surrender - likely, because they had no figurehead like the Emperor who could sack Hitler. You keep referencing this documentary evidence but so far you've failed to produce any to support your points, as opposed to the other side of the argument which has a well-reasoned and documented case. Your case seems to boil down to "well, the japanese were really, really evil, and therefore they can't be rational and this proves something and therefore I'm right".
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:I just want to know where in the tens of millions of civilian deaths during wwII do the few hundred thousand nuke deaths rank on the shame list. I need to know how much I should hate the countries who stopped Tojo & Hitler. Thanks Being the better side of a conflict does not invalidate criticism of behavior. You can say "it is objectively a good thing we won but many of the actions we took to win were still unethical"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I've answered this boring-rear end question several times: no one is defending the other war crimes thus there's no controversy thus no argument over it. Is a war crime ever justifiable though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yes, and when we look at the actual people involved we can see that they were far more concerned with the USSR than with the atomic bombs. you keep ignoring this because it doesn't fit your argument My post you quoted specifically said the Japanese were more rational than the Nazis. If two paragraphs give you that much trouble, I'm going to be pretty skeptical of your interpretation of any historical document longer than a sentence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
I've learned that calling war criminals, war criminals is in itself, justice. They may never be punished, but by tarnishing their legally unsullied name, in some way they didn't get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:My post you quoted specifically said the Japanese were more rational than the Nazis. If two paragraphs give you that much trouble, I'm going to be pretty skeptical of your interpretation of any historical document longer than a sentence. to be honest i'm not reading your posts that closely as soon as you start questioning the mental abilities of the japanese given how many people itt are evoking battaltions of schoolgirls banzai charging the beachhead etc. i mean once we assume historical figures are irrational what's the point of evidence at all, might as well just make poo poo up woo (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Being the better side of a conflict does not invalidate criticism of behavior. I think we can acknowledge we did bad things. But thats war. Wars changed a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think we can acknowledge we did bad things. But thats war. Sometimes you can't get a nation you're at war with to surrender without committing a few war crimes. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:to be honest i'm not reading your posts that closely as soon as you start questioning the mental abilities of the japanese given how many people itt are evoking battaltions of schoolgirls banzai charging the beachhead etc. This isn't exactly undermining evilweasel's case that your reading comprehension is so bad that other people shouldn't take any analysis you produce seriously Edit: especially before you ninja edited the bit where you accused him of calling the Japanese irrational out LGD fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Is a war crime ever justifiable though? this is arguably the whole thread's thesis
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
LGD posted:This isn't exactly undermining evilweasel's case that your reading comprehension is so bad that other people shouldn't take any analysis you produce seriously i too change my understanding of historic events based on forums grudges
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Sometimes you can't get a nation you're at war with to surrender without committing a few war crimes. Strategic Bombing was not a war crime at the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Being the better side of a conflict does not invalidate criticism of behavior. Agreed, but I just want to know how unethical on a relative basis vs an absolute. I have a finite amount of shame I can feel, so I want to properly attribute it to each warcrime of WWII. Also, being on the winning side of a total war does validate all of your actions on a nation state contemporary comparison basis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Is a war crime ever justifiable though? I think it's arguable that committing war crimes in WWII was justifiable, given the options available. While the strategic bombing was a war crime, it was directed at a legitimate end - the destruction of the Axis powers. Most of the horrific crimes committed by the Axis in WWII were just sort of pointless: Hitler's insane crimes against civilians in the invasion of the USSR, for example, turned off many groups that might have allied with the Germans against Stalin. But justifying it in that way requires accepting that it was wrong, and that it's only that it was the least wrong option that makes it justifiable. I think that - with the exception of the terror bombing aimed solely at destroying axis morale by killing civilians - the strategic bombing campaigns are arguably justifiable because lengthening the war would probably have resulted in more killings, and the inhumanity of the Axis regimes didn't allow for sitting back and doing nothing. But part of making that choice is paying the price and accepting that we did something gravely wrong. The people who say it was wrong are correct - they may be wrong about what the other options were and if any of those were more justifiable, but when looked at in isolation you can't deny it was a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I've learned that calling war criminals, war criminals is in itself, justice. They may never be punished, but by tarnishing their legally unsullied name, in some way they didn't get away with it. The only war criminals in ww2 were nazis, axis nations, the soviets, japanese, and vichy france.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Strategic Bombing was not a war crime at the time. Neither was the Armenian Genocide. Welp, sorry guys, guess that's that! Shouldn't have been so uppity and supportive of the Russians I guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The only war criminals in ww2 were nazis and japanese I was talking about anybody who worked in Bush's inner circle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I was talking about anybody who worked in Bush's inner circle. Their only crime was being so unpopular as to allow Obama to pullout completely from Iraq and create ISIL.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I've learned that calling war criminals, war criminals is in itself, justice. They may never be punished, but by tarnishing their legally unsullied name, in some way they didn't get away with it. Who are the war criminals in this case? The people who made the bombs. The people who dropped the bombs. Or the people who gave the order. Or all of the above.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Strategic Bombing was not a war crime at the time. Given that, with the nature of how hilariously inaccurate bombing was in WW2 when does bombing stop being strategic and start becoming a war crime?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think that - with the exception of the terror bombing aimed solely at destroying axis morale by killing civilians - the strategic bombing campaigns are arguably justifiable Wait wait. If the terror campaigns aimed solely at destroying axis morale weren't justifiable, then how are the atomic bombings any different? Is it just because the atomic bombings (maybe) succeeded? Seems a bit strange to say that war crimes are okay if after you do them it turns out they worked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Is a war crime ever justifiable though? If it's justifiable it is by definition not a war crime. That's part of why we as a culture understand that winning nations cannot commit war crimes. That's not ideal but it's the reality we've been operating in since we failed to prosecute Bomber Command and the Eighth Air Force at the Nuremberg Trials.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i too change my understanding of historic events based on forums grudges ??? I'm not sure why my saying your demonstrated inability to read or comprehend the basic positions of the people you're arguing with in favor of making completely unsubstantiated implications of racism is undermining your credibility actually means I'm basing my understanding of history on some sort of bizarre gestalt of forums popularity and personal slights?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:51
|
|