Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News

[aujeff11 6,243]

6 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

already told you what made me ask it. I quoted your post in which you claimed that the US did not enjoy the high moral ground in WWII. That warrants the question.

The USA not having moral highground in the war doesn't mean they are morally equivalent to Nazi Germany. 

Are you lost? 

 

And you three weirdos need to slow the **** down. I have 15 new notifications and can't get to them all at once while I'm at work. 

 

[homersapien 11,383]

21 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Special pleading again. What makes it more evil? The death toll? We killed more with conventional bombing. Starving their populace? Would have killed millions. Fighting them? Would have killed millions of them and several hundred thousand of us. Enough people died every few days ro equal the number the bomb killed. Were those people any less dead? 

They're bigger? Who cares. We dropped enough conventional weaponry to dwarf their yield. Why is that not more evil? 

I am disgusted. 

One estimate I recently read was at least 600,000 US casualties and maybe a lot more.

"The Fleet at Food Tide" by James D. Hornfischer

http://www.historynet.com/book-review-fleet-flood-tide-james-d-hornfischer.htm

"...author James D. Hornfischer argues persuasively in The Fleet at Flood Tide that both sides passed a threshold into total war. Yet it was Japanese leaders’ adherence to a policy of “bloody status quo” that dictated the endgame. After Saipan, two truths emerged: “A great victory was in hand…and far worse lay ahead.”.....

 

I highly recommend Hornfischer's books on the Pacific theater.

 

[AUDub 11,153]

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

The USA not having moral highground in the war doesn't mean they are morally equivalent to Nazi Germany. 

Are you lost? 

And you three weirdos need to slow the **** down. I have 15 new notifications and can't get to them all at once while I'm at work. 

I was right when I said you don't understand morality. That's exactly what it means!

[aujeff11 6,243]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Would have killed millions of them and several hundred thousand of us

They would have killed millions of themselves through starvation if that was the alternative to atomic bombs that we chose. Not us. An important distinction y'all choose to ignore just for the sake of arguing.???

[homersapien 11,383]

5 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

The USA not having moral highground in the war doesn't mean they are morally equivalent to Nazi Germany. 

Are you lost? 

As Spock would say, that's highly illogical.

As we have been stating it, the term "moral highground" or the "moral position" is relative.  No one is suggesting the U.S. is divinely and independently moral or even that our conduct in the war was invariably moral.   But if you have two sides in a war, it is possible - if not necessary - for one side to have a higher moral position than the other side(s).

That is what we are saying.  In WWII,  the U.S. held the superior moral position vs. our enemies.  You have stated we did not, which implies we were on a moral equivalency basis as the Japanese and the Germans.

Now perhaps in hindsight you would like to back that down.  But that is nevertheless the argument you have made with your statements. 

[homersapien 11,383]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

They would have killed millions of themselves through starvation if that was the alternative to atomic bombs that we chose. Not us. An important distinction y'all choose to ignore just for the sake of arguing.???

Seriously?  You think that's an  "important distinction" ?  

They weren't going to starve themselves unless we forced them to.  

On other words, killing a few hundred thousand directly is more moral that killing millions indirectly.

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

9 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

I was right when I said you don't understand morality. That's exactly what it means!

Wrong. We abandoned the right to claim moral highground when we nuked babies, women, etc and ran concentration camps. An ally that didn't do war crimes can claim moral highground I suppose but we can't. Maybe Britain has a case? 

But we weren't Germany either. 

[AUDub 11,153]

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

They would have killed millions of themselves through starvation if that was the alternative that they chose. Not us. An important distinction y'all choose to ignore just for the sake of arguing.???

And if they held out for three months, and for the sake of argument completely ignoring the effect on their own populace, they would have killed around 90,000 of our soldiers assuming the clip remained steady. They would have killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese and others in occupied territories where the slaughter continued unabated. The number killed by the bomb would have been paltry. You may not see it, but we would have born some moral culpability for that.

[aujeff11 6,243]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

19 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

 

As Spock would say, that's highly illogical.

 

Do you want me to say that we held morally higher ground than Germany but not the highest among the countries in the war? I'll be more than willing.

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

And if they held out for three months, and for the sake of argument completely ignoring the effect on their own populace, they would have killed around 90,000 of our soldiers assuming the clip remained steady

Quite an assumption giving that they would be starving and malnourished. There could've been a mutiny..

[homersapien 11,383]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

And if they held out for three months, and for the sake of argument completely ignoring the effect on their own populace, they would have killed around 90,000 of our soldiers assuming the clip remained steady. They would have killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese and others in occupied territories where the slaughter continued unabated. The number killed by the bomb would have been paltry. You may not see it, but we would have born some moral culpability for that.

Hey, you're talking to an expert on morality.

If you starve people instead of just outright killing them, you're not responsible.  

The Nazis and the Japanese used starvation primarily because it was cheap.  I'll bet even they didn't realize they were being more moral than just shooting or gassing them.

[aujeff11 6,243]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Seriously?  You think that's an  "important distinction" ?  

They weren't going to starve themselves unless we forced them to.  

We didn't force them to not give in to our demands of surrender. And again, that's only one alternative. 

[AUDub 11,153]

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

Quite an assumption giving that they would be starving and malnourished. There could've been a mutiny..

LOL. They were more than willing to die for their God, and three months isn't so long. Did the concept of Gyokusai not sink in? They drilled it into their populace. They prepared for a massive defense of their homeland, and we knew what was up because of the MAGIC intercepts.

[homersapien 11,383]

Just now, aujeff11 said:

We didn't force them to not give in to our demands of surrender. And again, that's only one alternative. 

That makes no sense.

Maybe your real problem is expressing yourself through writing.

[aujeff11 6,243]

 

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

So, what's changed in your mind?

I had given up.  What happened?

Literally nothing.

We didn't have the high ground. And ours wasn't equivalent to Germany

[homersapien 11,383]

5 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Quite an assumption giving that they would be starving and malnourished. There could've been a mutiny..

[aujeff11 6,243]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That makes no sense.

It makes total sense. Sharpen up your reading skills. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, homersapien said:

It's just as much within the realm of possibility. 

[AUDub 11,153]

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Do you want me to say that we held morally higher ground than Germany but not the highest among the countries in the war? I'll be more than willing.

Among the major powers involved, who? Bomber Harris poured the wrath of the British out upon the population of Dresden in righteous indignation. The USSR's behavior in eastern Europe would be enough to make Hitler blush. Japan, Italy, Germany? All launched undeclared wars against their unoffending neighbors and indulged in ethnic cleansing. It was a brutal, ugly total war on all sides.

[AUDub 11,153]

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Literally nothing.

We didn't have the high ground. And ours wasn't equivalent to Germany

That makes no sense. If they are not equivalent, either we have the high ground, or they do.

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

True confession:  

When I was about Jeff's age I used to make similar arguments about our use of atomic weapons on Japan.   As I became older and more informed over the years, I changed my mind.

You mean you got dumber over the years? Pray tell?

[AUDub 11,153]

9 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

It's just as much within the realm of possibility. 

Let's consider this in the context of another large battle from the war:

When the German Group North began the siege at Leningrad, they thought that it would be a cakewalk.  Hitler already had the invitations to the victory celebrations printed.  There was a plan "Both German and Finnish forces had the goal of encircling Leningrad and maintaining the blockade perimeter, thus cutting off all communication with the city and preventing the defenders from receiving any food or supplies. The Germans planned on food being their chief weapon against the citizens; German scientists had calculated that the city would reach starvation after only a small number of weeks."

The siege lasted 872 days. 

The Russians suffered.  They died, they ate everything down to the rats and probably including their own dead.  They hung on and eventually won. 

Nothing that I have ever read would suggest that the Japanese were less tough than the Russians.  They would have hung on.  They would have died by the millions but they would have hung on.

[aujeff11 6,243]

4 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

That makes no sense. If they are not equivalent, either we have the high ground, or they do.

See my post to Homer, moron.

[AUDub 11,153]

Just now, aujeff11 said:

See my post to Homer, moron.

I did. It makes no sense.

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

Nothing that I have ever read would suggest that the Japanese were less tough than the Russians.  They would have hung on.  They would have died by the millions but the would have hung on.

Thanks for your opinion. 

 

Just now, Bigbens42 said:

I did. It makes no sense.

It does. It actually made sense to Homer as well. Maybe he can think for himself after all?