Author Topic: facebook argument: who's in the right (Read 1519 times)

Unwritten Calender · May 08, 2016, 12:49:46 AM

so a buddy of mine posts this picture on fb:

now, naturally, i don't agree with either of things that happened. it's forgeted up that we nuked japan, and 9/11's forgeted up. i'm not tryna defend any one of these standpoints, but i'm probably going to come off like i am

so this is how i reply.

ME: to be fair, 9/11 was unprovoked. we were at war with japan, and we only nuked them a second time because they didn't learn their lesson after the first

HIM: It's not that they didn't learn their lesson, it's that they did not surrender
(^ this seemed fairly irrelevant)
ME: which is essentially the same thing, because if they learned their lesson, they'd have surrendered

HIM: The second nuke was uncalled for. Did you know that they had a third nuke really to bomb Tokyo? If they did not comply the second time. Yes I understand they caused pearl harbor, but that is not equivalent to a nuke in 2 different locations. America was scared of Japan because of how ruthless and determined they were.

ME: I know they had a 3rd ready. but, if you consider that if they didn't nuke them, World War 2 would just continue. more people would be killed, all that good stuff. I'm not tryna defend us nuking them, I'm just providing counterargument for the picture. i agree that nuking them was BRUTAL but there's a point for the other side

HIM: Now, how was 9'11 unprovoked? It might have been unprovoked to us, but some people in the middle east hated us for how much we had, we provoked them unintentionally but still provoked them. they were intimidated by us. And they have the same mind set and Japan back I the day "We'd rather die than surrender" they do it for "Allah"

ME: in that sense, you can say it was unprovoked. but we hadn't attacked them before, we just had a different set of beliefs which is mainly why they hate us. that just makes them dumb. we didn't nuke japan for different beliefs but because it'd end the war. we even warned em

HIM: Do you know we are at war right now? With the middle east. We are fighting them, losing american journalists, soldiers. but why aren't we nuking them??

ME: because we can't pinpoint their location, like i just said lol

HIM: Middle east is middle east
Japan is japan
Different cities
Still there are innocent people that died in japan way more than 9/11

ME: you know civil war is going in the middle east too? if we nuke them and they lose 'friendlies' what do they care? i agree that nuking japan caused way more damage but there's still definitely not a 'more ok thing to do'

so yeah, who do you guys think is right? picking a side is weird for this but really, i wanna see what you guys have to say

Ad Bot · Advertisement

SeventhSandwich · May 08, 2016, 12:55:12 AM

Neither of you is in the right. Your friend is just being a richard by minimizing a terrorist attack like that, but you're also making it sound like nuking Japan was entirely justifiable just because we were at war. If we were to do that today under the same circumstances, it would be widely condemned as an awful war crime. Was it worth it? In hindsight, most people say yes.

Also,

Quote

Middle east is middle east
Japan is japan
Different cities

lol

Unwritten Calender · May 08, 2016, 12:57:32 AM

Quote from: SeventhSandwich on May 08, 2016, 12:55:12 AM

Neither of you is in the right.

that's what im thinking.
sad thing is, i know that i'm looking like im trying to justify it, but i'm not.
at least we warned japan though. "stop this stuff or we nuke you."
"no"
"ok ur getting what u asked for"

Path · May 08, 2016, 12:57:46 AM

Another "who's in the right" topic
You gunna switch the polls on us too?

Also i wouldn't call the us involvement in the middle east since the 60s 'unprovoking'

SeventhSandwich · May 08, 2016, 01:06:03 AM

Quote from: Unwritten Calender on May 08, 2016, 12:57:32 AM

sad thing is, i know that i'm looking like im trying to justify it, but i'm not.
at least we warned japan though. "stop this stuff or we nuke you."

The way I'd phrase it is, although both attacks targeted citizens, nuking Japan at least ended a much larger conflict that would have likely resulted in a loss of life much greater than those lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Al-Qaeda orchestrated the 9/11 attacks because they were angry about US military presence in Saudi Arabia, our role in the Gulf War, and our support of Israel. The 9/11 attacks effectively worsened the state of the Middle East and had no effect on our foreign policy, despite injuring and killing thousands of civilians who had basically no hand in crafting that foreign policy to begin with. One tragedy was made as an arguably successful attempt at saving lives, while the other was just a symbolic 'forget you' to our government.

Unwritten Calender · May 08, 2016, 01:12:32 AM

Quote from: SeventhSandwich on May 08, 2016, 01:06:03 AM

The way I'd phrase it is, although both attacks targeted citizens, nuking Japan at least ended a much larger conflict that would have likely resulted in a loss of life much greater than those lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Al-Qaeda orchestrated the 9/11 attacks because they were angry about US military presence in Saudi Arabia, our role in the Gulf War, and our support of Israel. The 9/11 attacks effectively worsened the state of the Middle East and had no effect on our foreign policy, despite injuring and killing thousands of civilians who had basically no hand in crafting that foreign policy to begin with. One tragedy was made as an arguably successful attempt at saving lives, while the other was just a symbolic 'forget you' to our government.

you phrased that pretty well. i probably should've done a wee bit more research on 9/11 though, i probably look silly

Quote from: Path on May 08, 2016, 12:57:46 AM

Another "who's in the right" topic
You gunna switch the polls on us too?

Also i wouldn't call the us involvement in the middle east since the 60s 'unprovoking'

i was going to ignore your comment until you edited in that little thing
valid point though

Planr · May 08, 2016, 01:19:07 AM

Nuking Japan was absolutely necessary because the only alternative was invading the Japanese mainland, which would have killed far more people on both sides, resulted in far more civilian casualties, and far more infrastructural damage than two relatively low-level atomic weapons.

Keep in mind Japan was responsible for over 30 million non-Japanese Asians being murdered leading up to and during the war (might also want to read about the rape of nanking)

Rally · May 08, 2016, 01:23:01 AM

I've read that an invasion of Japan would've cost millions of lives of both Japanese civilians and soldiers. I also read that the citizens of the two cities were given warnings in advance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but over-all I believe that obliterating those two cities and forcing Japan to surrender was a better outcome than invading Japan, for everyone involved.

Alternat�ve · May 08, 2016, 01:30:30 AM

We should have made them the 48th state

SeventhSandwich · May 08, 2016, 02:11:43 AM

Quote from: Rally on May 08, 2016, 01:23:01 AM

I've read that an invasion of Japan would've cost millions of lives of both Japanese civilians and soldiers. I also read that the citizens of the two cities were given warnings in advance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but over-all I believe that obliterating those two cities and forcing Japan to surrender was a better outcome than invading Japan, for everyone involved.

In hindsight, it was worth it, but at the time, nobody could have guaranteed that it would have saved as many lives as it did. That's why I wouldn't necessarily call it entirely justifiable.

Quote from: Rally on May 08, 2016, 01:23:01 AM

I also read that the citizens of the two cities were given warnings in advance.

This seems like a shaky way to justify it. If Al-Qaeda warned citizens of New York City that a terrorist attack was imminent, would WTC employees be at fault for not heeding their warning?

ZSNO · May 08, 2016, 02:25:40 AM

The part about nuking Tokyo is pretty dumb because we already firebombed the stuff out of Tokyo; pretty much looked the same as the nuked cities.

Rally · May 08, 2016, 02:41:43 AM

Quote from: SeventhSandwich on May 08, 2016, 02:11:43 AM

If Al-Qaeda warned citizens of New York City that a terrorist attack was imminent, would WTC employees be at fault for not heeding their warning?

I wasn't trying to shift the blame onto innocent Japanese civilians for getting nuked, but I don't think they were out solely to kill Japanese people. The Manhatten District told them that if they didn't surrender we were gonna nuke them, they didn't surrender, so we nuked them. I wouldn't blame the "WTC Employees", but I would blame "America" or w/e the appropriate equivalence in this brown townogy is for not cutting their losses in a recklessly hopeless position.

Is it justified because they had a choice? I don't know, their choices were obviously very limited lol, but I don't have much sympathy for the Empire of Japan during World War II