Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified

[eduardo89]

So the Japanese government and military should have been left, unpunished and in power? What would have stopped them from doing it again in the future?

We learned that lesson in WW1 with the Germans.

Hahaha, dude read a history book. It was precisely because of the way the allies punished Germany after WWI that there was such strong resent which Hitler capitalized on. Germans resented the US/UK/France for the Versailles Treaty.

 

[69360]

Go read a book please I beg you. Any book on WW1 or WW2 would work.

You found this place and still think books will tell you the truth?

1- In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt seizes all Japanese assets in the United States in retaliation for the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China.

2- Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan

Further, FDR had no Constitutional authority to order PRIVATE INDUSTRY no to sell to whomever they chose.

Japan didn't use oil for heating.

The trading with the enemy act allowed him.

 

[Danan]

A reason is not needed to stop trade. A country is not obligated to trade with another. Do you want a world government enforcing mandatory trade?

Countries don't trade, people trade. And obviously American and Japanese people wanted to trade, or else no trade barriers would have been required.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

A country has a right not to trade with another country, however they don't have a right to forbid a third country from trading.

The US didn't like the way the Japanese military was behaving and cut off steel and oil. That was their right and was not a provocation for attack.

Except that individuals have a right to accept and/or decline trade, not governments.

 

[Cabal]

You found this place and still think books will tell you the truth?

You might try starting here: http://mises.org/Literature

 

[69360]

Hahaha, dude read a history book. It was precisely because of the way the allies punished Germany after WWI that there was such strong resent which Hitler capitalized on. Germans resented the US/UK/France for the Versailles Treaty.

The Germans weren't treated harshly ENOUGH after WW1. That is what let the nazis rise to power. They were absolutely crushed after WW2 as was Japan.

 

[69360]

Except that individuals have a right to accept and/or decline trade, not governments.

Not in the US, we have a trading with the enemy act that allowed Roosevelt to do what he did.

 

[Danan]

Not in the US, we have a trading with the enemy act that allowed Roosevelt to do what he did.

And you have ObamaCare. So forcing people to buy healthcare is obviously right and justifiable.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Not in the US, we have a trading with the enemy act that allowed Roosevelt to do what he did.

So because it's legislated, that automatically means it's justified?

 

[bunklocoempire]

My position has changed on this since I woke up. (2005 or so -not this morning)

Voted no -and my beliefs are more consistent for it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It was very plausible that they would have fought to the last person standing including women and children or committed mass suicide. They did in their territories, why would they not defend their homeland the same or stronger.

This is irrelevant. There was no more need to invade Japan than there was to nuke it.
The Japanese were beaten - and they knew it. Prior to the use of nuclear weapons, Japan sued for conditional surrender.
Their suit fell on deaf ears. Peace could have been achieved without invasion or nuclear bombing - but the U.S. government wouldn't hear of it.

So the Japanese government and military should have been left, unpunished and in power? What would have stopped them from doing it again in the future?

No one has suggested that nothing should have been done to or about Japan's military or government, or that anyone should have gone unpunished. What has been suggested is that terms of conditional surrender should have been pursued - as victors, the U.S. held the upper hand and was very well-positioned to seek appropriately punitive & structural remedies as part of a negotiated peace. But apparently, that just wasn't "good enough" - instead, around 200,000 people (give or take 50,000) had to be be horribly and pointlessly slaughtered in two big, bright flashes for no reason other than to satiate the U.S. government's imperious lust for the unconditional humiliation & utter subjugation of Japan (and to shake a sword at Russia).

We learned that lesson in WW1 with the Germans.

The lesson we learned from World War One is that when you impose a feeble & poorly contrived "democracy" on a country and exact intolerably punitive & humiliating revenge (such as excessively crushing war reparations), you sow the seeds for future disaster - in this case, the rise of Hitler and World War Two. So if anything, the example of World War One Germany actually mitigates against your point.

 

[eduardo89]

The Germans weren't treated harshly ENOUGH after WW1. That is what let the nazis rise to power. They were absolutely crushed after WW2 as was Japan.

You're joking right? They were saddled with a reparation debt that everyone knew they would never be able to pay, their entire armed forces were destroyed, they lost 1/3 of their territory...

 

[69360]

And you have ObamaCare. So forcing people to buy healthcare is obviously right and justifiable.

So because it's legislated, that automatically means it's justified?

Legal and justifiable are two different distinct things.

Yes, I think prohibiting citizens of a country from trading with an enemy country is justifiable. Especially so if the enemy country is waging wars of aggression, not self defense.

 

[69360]

You're joking right? They were saddled with a reparation debt that everyone knew they would never be able to pay, their entire armed forces were destroyed, they lost 1/3 of their territory...

No, I'm not joking. It took absolutely crushing them after WW2 to break them from waging further wars of aggression. After WW1 they were able to rebuild their industrial and military might within 15 years, they obviously were not destroyed. I have no sympathy for countries that wage war not in self defense.

 

[69360]

The lesson we learned from World War One is that when you impose a feeble & poorly contrived "democracy" on a country and exact intolerably punitive & humiliating revenge (such as excessively crushing war reparations), you sow the seeds for future disaster - in this case, the rise of Hitler and World War Two. So if anything, the example of World War One Germany actually mitigates against your point.

No, the fact that WW2 in Europe occured proves you wrong. If post WW1 treatment of Germany was so "excessively crushing", then how did they re-arm and wage WW2 in 15 years. The truth is they were not deterred enough. There were still Germans that thought they could do it again and get away with it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

No, I'm not joking. It took absolutely crushing them after WW2 to break them from waging further wars of aggression.

They were NOT "absolutely crushed" after WW2. Just the opposite. The Allies went to great lengths to rebuild (West) Germany after the war (via the Marshall Plan, etc.). The Allies did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts, of course. Post-WW2 Europe had become the staging ground for the next great phase of geopolitics - the so-called "Cold War" - but the point nevertheless remains: post-WW2 Germany was NOT crushed "absolutely."

Germany WAS "absolutely crushed" after WW1 - which is precisely what provided the impelling force for the rise of the Third Reich.

So if you are not joking, then I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

such a failure! Must've gotten a history education from a neocon...

No, the fact that WW2 in Europe occured proves you wrong. If post WW1 treatment of Germany was so "excessively crushing", then how did they re-arm and wage WW2 in 15 years. The truth is they were not deterred enough. There were still Germans that thought they could do it again and get away with it.

 

[AuH20]

The Germans weren't treated harshly ENOUGH after WW1. That is what let the nazis rise to power. They were absolutely crushed after WW2 as was Japan.

It was actually the opposite. 132 billion marks as restitution including major territorial concessions. Germany was basically scapegoated for the entire war.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

They were NOT "absolutely crushed" after WW2. Just the opposite. The Allies went to great lengths to rebuild (West) Germany after the war (via the Marshall Plan, etc.). The Allies did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts, of course. Post-WW2 Europe had become the staging ground for the next great phase of geopolitics - the so-called "Cold War" - but the point nevertheless remains: post-WW2 Germany was NOT crushed "absolutely."

Germany WAS "absolutely crushed" after WW1 - which is precisely what provided the impelling force for the rise of the Third Reich.

So if you are not joking, then I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.

This^^ This is one of the few things about The War that is pretty well agreed upon by everyone from the nuts who write government school textbooks to the Buchananites to the anarcho-capitalists and beyond.

 

[amy31416]

The good thing that I've learned from this thread is that I've chosen wisely in who I block--almost all the pro-violence/murder posters who think it's okay to kill innocent people are blocked.

Much more pleasant, but don't worry--I know you still exist and would consider my own family collateral damage if I were born in the "wrong" place. All of you who fall into that category need professional help in the ethics/morality department and should probably avoid human contact until you take care of that.