Skashion said:Bullshit, what right did the Americans have to be in Vietnam? War is no defence if you shouldn't fucking be there. The west has consistently killed people in the most horrific and deplorable ways, including innocent people. From fire-bombing Tokyo and Dresden, dropping nuclear bombs, bombing Vietnam, using Napalm, Agent Orange, and flamethrowers along the way, to double-tap and signature drone strikes. The west has no moral authority. None whatsoever.
The Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s is often compared to the military of Nazi Germany during 1933–45 because of the sheer scale of suffering. Much of the controversy regarding Japan's role in World War II revolves around the death rates of prisoners of war and civilians under Japanese occupation. Historian Chalmers Johnson has written that:
It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians (i.e. Soviet citizens); the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as (forced) prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not the Soviet Union) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; (by comparison) the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.[39]
According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal, the death rate among POWs from Asian countries, held by Japan was 27.1%.[40] The death rate of Chinese POWs was much higher because—under a directive ratified on August 5, 1937 by Emperor Hirohito—the constraints of international law on treatment of those prisoners was removed.[41] Only 56 Chinese POWs were released after the surrender of Japan.[42] After March 20, 1943, the Japanese Navy was under orders to execute all prisoners taken at sea.[43]
Human experimentation and biological warfare
Shiro Ishii, commander of Unit 731.
Special Japanese military units conducted experiments on civilians and POWs in China. One of the most infamous was Unit 731 under Shirō Ishii. Unit 731 was established by order of Hirohito himself. Victims were subjected to experiments including but not limited to vivisection and amputations without anesthesia and testing of biological weapons. Anesthesia was not used because it was believed that anesthetics would adversely affect the results of the experiments.[68]
To determine the treatment of frostbite, prisoners were taken outside in freezing weather and left with exposed arms, periodically drenched with water until frozen solid. The arm was later amputated; the doctor would repeat the process on the victim's upper arm to the shoulder. After both arms were gone, the doctors moved on to the legs until only a head and torso remained. The victim was then used for plague and pathogens experiments.[69]
According to GlobalSecurity.org, the experiments carried out by Unit 731 alone caused 3,000 deaths.[70] Furthermore, according to the 2002 International Symposium on the Crimes of Bacteriological Warfare, the number of people killed by the Imperial Japanese Army germ warfare and human experiments is around 580,000.[71] According to other sources, "tens of thousands, and perhaps as many as 400,000, Chinese died of bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and other diseases ...", resulting from the use of biological warfare.
You're referring to the wickerman?SWP's back said:There's the famous strawmanSkashion said:Aye, that's the one isn't it. Can't remember the last time the Viet Cong bombed Manchester with Napalm though... Strange isn't it.Plaything of the gods said:OK for its purpose in war, but not at any other time?
“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
It's a point of view, a justification for using terrifying punishment on his enemies by a 'Dear Leader', but not one I agree with on moral grounds any more or less than using such a terrifying method in war.“it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
Oh dear. You seem to think that two wrongs make a right. Specifically, you generalise. You make no distinction between those perpetrating terror and those at the receiving end of terror. You use the act of terror to dehumanise the whole nation, so that you can then say that anyone from that nation is fair game to be a recipient of terror. Did you therefore agree with the 7/7 bombers and the murderers of Lee Rigby that any and all people in Britain are fair targets because of the terrors imposed on the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. by Britain (the British military under orders from the British government)?Challenger1978 said:Skashion said:Bullshit, what right did the Americans have to be in Vietnam? War is no defence if you shouldn't fucking be there. The west has consistently killed people in the most horrific and deplorable ways, including innocent people. From fire-bombing Tokyo and Dresden, dropping nuclear bombs, bombing Vietnam, using Napalm, Agent Orange, and flamethrowers along the way, to double-tap and signature drone strikes. The west has no moral authority. None whatsoever.
Are you taking the piss ?
The Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s is often compared to the military of Nazi Germany during 1933–45 because of the sheer scale of suffering. Much of the controversy regarding Japan's role in World War II revolves around the death rates of prisoners of war and civilians under Japanese occupation. Historian Chalmers Johnson has written that:
It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians (i.e. Soviet citizens); the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as (forced) prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not the Soviet Union) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; (by comparison) the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.[39]
According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal, the death rate among POWs from Asian countries, held by Japan was 27.1%.[40] The death rate of Chinese POWs was much higher because—under a directive ratified on August 5, 1937 by Emperor Hirohito—the constraints of international law on treatment of those prisoners was removed.[41] Only 56 Chinese POWs were released after the surrender of Japan.[42] After March 20, 1943, the Japanese Navy was under orders to execute all prisoners taken at sea.[43]
Most of those that were murdered were innocent civilians.
Human experimentation and biological warfare
Shiro Ishii, commander of Unit 731.
Special Japanese military units conducted experiments on civilians and POWs in China. One of the most infamous was Unit 731 under Shirō Ishii. Unit 731 was established by order of Hirohito himself. Victims were subjected to experiments including but not limited to vivisection and amputations without anesthesia and testing of biological weapons. Anesthesia was not used because it was believed that anesthetics would adversely affect the results of the experiments.[68]
To determine the treatment of frostbite, prisoners were taken outside in freezing weather and left with exposed arms, periodically drenched with water until frozen solid. The arm was later amputated; the doctor would repeat the process on the victim's upper arm to the shoulder. After both arms were gone, the doctors moved on to the legs until only a head and torso remained. The victim was then used for plague and pathogens experiments.[69]
According to GlobalSecurity.org, the experiments carried out by Unit 731 alone caused 3,000 deaths.[70] Furthermore, according to the 2002 International Symposium on the Crimes of Bacteriological Warfare, the number of people killed by the Imperial Japanese Army germ warfare and human experiments is around 580,000.[71] According to other sources, "tens of thousands, and perhaps as many as 400,000, Chinese died of bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and other diseases ...", resulting from the use of biological warfare.
The Germans and Japanese deserved everything they bloody well got. In fact I'd say the bastards got of likely after what they did.
I don't feel I need a straw man to dispute the idea that it's ok to burn people to death in the officialdom of war (not the war was declared on Vietnam anyway - the United States hasn't declared a war since the Second World War). I don't war is a just argument for being as nasty and evil as you fucking want to be. Nor do I feel I need to make a case that the United States has no business in Vietnam. It should be fairly self-evident that a country several thousands miles away which has not intruded upon its sovereign territory has nothing whatso-fucking-ever to do with the United States. My point was quite simple though. It's never the Vietnamese with their soldiers in the United States or the North Koreans with their soldiers in the United Kingdom is it? This may explain why I hold the west more responsible. I find it even more absurd that given that the west busies itself with constantly interfering in the affairs of others, that we should simply shrug our soldiers at the pain, misery and deaths it inflicts just because it chooses to label it a war. It is even more galling that people from the west should judge themselves to be morally superior despite that behaviour and despite the fact that it isn't reciprocated.SWP's back said:There's the famous strawman
Hehe, Machiavelli was an evil ****. :)Plaything of the gods said:You're referring to the wickerman?SWP's back said:There's the famous strawmanSkashion said:Aye, that's the one isn't it. Can't remember the last time the Viet Cong bombed Manchester with Napalm though... Strange isn't it.
Anyway...
“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The PrinceIt's a point of view, a justification for using terrifying punishment on his enemies by a 'Dear Leader', but not one I agree with on moral grounds any more or less than using such a terrifying method in war.“it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
Skashion said:I don't feel I need a straw man to dispute the idea that it's ok to burn people to death in the officialdom of war (not the war was declared on Vietnam anyway - the United States hasn't declared a war since the Second World War). I don't war is a just argument for being as nasty and evil as you fucking want to be. Nor do I feel I need to make a case that the United States has no business in Vietnam. It should be fairly self-evident that a country several thousands miles away which has not intruded upon its sovereign territory has nothing whatso-fucking-ever to do with the United States. My point was quite simple though. It's never the Vietnamese with their soldiers in the United States or the North Koreans with their soldiers in the United Kingdom is it? This may explain why I hold the west more responsible. I find it even more absurd that given that the west busies itself with constantly interfering in the affairs of others, that we should simply shrug our soldiers at the pain, misery and deaths it inflicts just because it chooses to label it a war. It is even more galling that people from the west should judge themselves to be morally superior despite that behaviour and despite the fact that it isn't reciprocated.SWP's back said:There's the famous strawman
By the way, this war excuse you seem fond of, were the IRA (who I know you're not fond of) not at war with Britain? Who decides what constitutes a war and what is terrorism?
You might want to follow my argument first before asking if I'm taking the piss. Firstly, I'm arguing the west has no right to claim moral authority. Germany is in the west. The fact that the worst genocide in history was committed in the west, by westerners, against westerners, actually emboldens my argument that the west is not in a place to morally lecture the rest of the world. Secondly, I'm not arguing anyone else can claim moral authority either. I suppose I'm a fan of arguing moral superiority from morality and logic, not which particular country or perspective you happen to belong to.<br /><br />-- Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:43 pm --<br /><br />Challenger1978 said:Are you taking the piss ?
The Germans and Japanese deserved everything they bloody well got. In fact I'd say the bastards got of lucky after what they did.
It's the rub of the matter isn't it. Some people cannot see that. They see us and them. My country, right or wrong. Or more properly, my country is right because I was born here. Sadly, you can't deploy logic against such people because logic is not the currency they trade in, it's ego.Plaything of the gods said:Did you therefore agree with the 7/7 bombers and the murderers of Lee Rigby that any and all people in Britain are fair targets because of the terrors imposed on the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. by Britain (the British military under orders from the British government)?
Skashion said:You might want to follow my argument first before asking if I'm taking the piss. Firstly, I'm arguing the west has no right to claim moral authority. Germany is in the west. The fact that the worst genocide in history was committed in the west, by westerners, against westerners, actually emboldens my argument that the west is not in a place to morally lecture the rest of the world. Secondly, I'm not arguing anyone else can claim moral authority either. I suppose I'm a fan of arguing moral superiority from morality and logic, not which particular country or perspective you happen to belong to.
I hate those parody Facebook accounts.stony said:Genghis Khan disagrees.