Presidential vapor in Hiroshima....

[Nice Squirrel]

But they have guilt whether they recognize it or not.

So guilt is an outside imposition?

 

[untermensche]

But they have guilt whether they recognize it or not.

So guilt is an outside imposition?

If you cause deliberate harm to another you have to justify that harm.

If you can't you have "guilt" for causing unjustified harm.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So I can just say, "because I felt so" and have justified the harm and there is no guilt?


_______________
I'm thinking we might want to move this to MF&P...

 

[untermensche]

So I can just say, "because I felt so" and have justified the harm and there is no guilt?

How is that a valid justification?

Who accepts that as valid? If it is only accepted by the person who committed the harm then it is not a justification.

A valid justification is one that justifies everyone.

And of course we have courts and trials and we examine the justifications and impartial people, people not involved in the harm, reach a conclusion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So guilt is an outside imposition?

If you cause deliberate harm to another you have to justify that harm.

If you can't you have "guilt" for causing unjustified harm.

When people commit crimes and don't take responsibility they automatically blame something else. The asylums for the criminally insane and prisons are full of such people The justification used for the bomb was that it saved lived. Never mind the fact that civilians were the main targets and Japan was sending peace probes all over the place.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So I can just say, "because I felt so" and have justified the harm and there is no guilt?


_______________
I'm thinking we might want to move this to MF&P...

This question of yours is correct. In not taking responsibility for their actions criminals frequently try to justify what they do and fail to acknowledge responsibility. The Nazis past and present claim the actions were done to bring about a better world.

 

[whichphilosophy]

But they have guilt whether they recognize it or not.

So guilt is an outside imposition?

It's something interesting to look at. I think that amongst the barbarous logic of modern homo sapiens there is some inherent knowledge subconsciously what is right or wrong but consciously we justify such actions. The mass droppings of Asian Orange were also justified then and sometimes still now.

The external imposition of guilt on others, without the facts is the flip side of justifying one's own actions.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Unleash the dogs of war? You said it was a Japanese pathology. Make up your mind.

Maybe Macaque's of War would have worked better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If Japan wanted us out, we would leave, just like when Japan wanted Okinawa back we gave it back.

Lucky Japan, Cuba is not so lucky.

Japan behaves in a friendly fashion towards us. Castro's Cuba went out of it's way to keep antagonizing us--the embargo gave him a convenient scapegoat to blame Cuba's economic problems on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What didn't change was the post war mindset.

The idea that the US would set the order to the greatest extent possible.

That was Vietnam.

The US was going to determine the kind of economy and government the people of Vietnam had, at least by that time what South Vietnam would have.

And this post-war mindset begins with the dropping of the bombs on Japan to show the world we would not hesitate to use them under some circumstances.

The dropping of those bombs very well may have prevented a much larger conflict with a lot more atomic weapons. We showed the world what could be done and it frightened the Soviets into not invading Western Europe. It sucks, but those deaths may have spared tens of millions down the road.

I don't see it as a matter of showing the world what can be done.

Rather, Russia was expansionist. Armed conflict was basically inevitable, the only question was where and how big. By fighting them on lesser battlefields avoided fighting them on bigger battlefields.

It also helped bring down Russia--they had to divert so much of their economy to military purposes that it caused a lot of discontent amongst their population.

Add to this the information revolution--the very technologies that would help them would also help dissidents spread the truth. They couldn't keep it up, their society collapsed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We didn't respond to war. We responded to Japanese success and growing power.

So the Japanese invasion and subsequent atrocities that they inflicted on the Chinese, which rivaled Hitler's concentration camps, was something you call a success?

Huh.

Are you aware that it is possible to say that other nations have done bad things and at the same time criticize the U.S. for what it's done? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

They were our enemies, they must be good guys, therefore what they did must have been good. Anyone who says otherwise is just a revisionist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What the fuck man!

The US attack of the Iraqi people destroyed Iraqi society. Millions fled. It led directly to sectarian violence that hadn't existed in 200 years that is still killing people in Iraq. It was the major reason ISIS was able to become a force in the region since the military leadership of ISIS is ex-Iraqi military. It also provided ISIS with weapons.

Once again, you have the cart before the horse.

Sectarian violence erupted because the various meddlers in the area funded it.

Furthermore, the pre-hostility situation was major oppression. Saying that was a good situation is like saying Jim Crow was a good way to run a society.

We did make a big mistake over there but it was a matter of not realizing the amount of evil over there. Our actions would have been reasonable without the meddlers.

 

[untermensche]

What the fuck man!

The US attack of the Iraqi people destroyed Iraqi society. Millions fled. It led directly to sectarian violence that hadn't existed in 200 years that is still killing people in Iraq. It was the major reason ISIS was able to become a force in the region since the military leadership of ISIS is ex-Iraqi military. It also provided ISIS with weapons.

Once again, you have the cart before the horse.

Sectarian violence erupted because the various meddlers in the area funded it.

Furthermore, the pre-hostility situation was major oppression. Saying that was a good situation is like saying Jim Crow was a good way to run a society.

We did make a big mistake over there but it was a matter of not realizing the amount of evil over there. Our actions would have been reasonable without the meddlers.

It was Bremer who had the idea to divide neighborhoods by sect.

In Bremer’s Iraq, citizens were forced to declare a sect on all state-issued documents. Sectarian identity formed the basis of political organization: Each sect was allocated a quota in the governing council on the basis of this new social contract. Islamism became the primary (and nearly exclusive) mode of political expression. Politicians vying for political power pitted Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups against one another, carrying this precedent into the new government.

...Bremer’s ham-fisted policies of de-Baathification of Iraq’s military and bureaucracy disproportionately affected the Sunnis, who were overrepresented in Saddam’s Baathist regime. It removed overwhelmingly Sunni social and military elites from positions of power and limited their stakes in the new Iraq. The move also left them with plenty of means to undermine the political process. The broader Sunni population found itself disempowered, with little political recourse to rectify its grievances. As a result, it grew increasingly susceptible to calls for armed resistance from disgruntled Sunni elites.

As a result of these dynamics, the insurgency against the state and its foreign patrons grew increasingly sectarian and radical. These trends culminated with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) — a group so radical that even Osama bin Laden chastised it for expending so much energy and resources attacking ethnic and religious minorities at the expense of Al-Qaeda’s primary mandate to drive out foreign powers and depose Middle East tyrants.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/8/iraq-sectarianismshiassunniskurdsnourialmalaki.html

Your position is pure prejudice. An irrational hatred of Muslims. Bigotry. Nothing more.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Lucky Japan, Cuba is not so lucky.

Japan behaves in a friendly fashion towards us. Castro's Cuba went out of it's way to keep antagonizing us--the embargo gave him a convenient scapegoat to blame Cuba's economic problems on.

What did Cuba do to antagonize the Americans other than not get rid of Castro? The confrontation with Russia ended a long time ago. The purpose of the blockade was to harm Cuba's economy so no one needs to find any scapegoats.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If you cause deliberate harm to another you have to justify that harm.

If you can't you have "guilt" for causing unjustified harm.

When people commit crimes and don't take responsibility they automatically blame something else. The asylums for the criminally insane and prisons are full of such people The justification used for the bomb was that it saved lived. Never mind the fact that civilians were the main targets and Japan was sending peace probes all over the place.

And 10 days prior to the first bombing the US dropped leaflets and broadcast radio transmissions asking for Japan to surrender. Not a peep, not even a peep after the first bomb went off. We can also speculate whether or not Japan would have surrendered if Russia wasn't going to enter the war. You would have a point if Japan kept going to the US and saying we surrender but the US was saying no.

And if we hadn't had the bombs, those two cities would have been bombed.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So I can just say, "because I felt so" and have justified the harm and there is no guilt?

How is that a valid justification?

Who accepts that as valid? If it is only accepted by the person who committed the harm then it is not a justification.

A valid justification is one that justifies everyone.

And of course we have courts and trials and we examine the justifications and impartial people, people not involved in the harm, reach a conclusion.

We've gone back to the beginning. Guilt in this sense is an outside imposition.

 

[untermensche]

How is that a valid justification?

Who accepts that as valid? If it is only accepted by the person who committed the harm then it is not a justification.

A valid justification is one that justifies everyone.

And of course we have courts and trials and we examine the justifications and impartial people, people not involved in the harm, reach a conclusion.

We've gone back to the beginning. Guilt in this sense is an outside imposition.

No, outside recognition.

Imposition by deed.

Guilt for unjustified harm occurs immediately when the harm is done. Even if it may take time to recognize that guilt exists.

 

[whichphilosophy]

When people commit crimes and don't take responsibility they automatically blame something else. The asylums for the criminally insane and prisons are full of such people The justification used for the bomb was that it saved lived. Never mind the fact that civilians were the main targets and Japan was sending peace probes all over the place.

And 10 days prior to the first bombing the US dropped leaflets and broadcast radio transmissions asking for Japan to surrender. Not a peep, not even a peep after the first bomb went off. We can also speculate whether or not Japan would have surrendered if Russia wasn't going to enter the war. You would have a point if Japan kept going to the US and saying we surrender but the US was saying no.

And if we hadn't had the bombs, those two cities would have been bombed.

The were being carpet bombed every day so that was not expected. There was a two day gap between the first and second blast On the day after the first one they were still finding out in the rest of Japan what happened. We didn't have smartphones then of course.

The initiative for peace talks was not taken up. A ceasefire a few months earlier would have saved a lot of lives.

Why would anyone thing US foreign policy was any wiser than it is today?

 

[coloradoatheist]

And 10 days prior to the first bombing the US dropped leaflets and broadcast radio transmissions asking for Japan to surrender. Not a peep, not even a peep after the first bomb went off. We can also speculate whether or not Japan would have surrendered if Russia wasn't going to enter the war. You would have a point if Japan kept going to the US and saying we surrender but the US was saying no.

And if we hadn't had the bombs, those two cities would have been bombed.

The were being carpet bombed every day so that was not expected. There was a two day gap between the first and second blast On the day after the first one they were still finding out in the rest of Japan what happened. We didn't have smartphones then of course.

The initiative for peace talks was not taken up. A ceasefire a few months earlier would have saved a lot of lives.

Why would anyone thing US foreign policy was any wiser than it is today?

And there was 8 days from when the radio announcement/leaflets went out and the first bomb was dropped that Japan could have called for a cease fire and discuss surrender terms but they chose to keep on fighting. Japan started the war and continued to fight. And even on the last day it was uncertain that Japan would even surrender, their military wanted to keep fighting and almost pulled off a coup to continue.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And 10 days prior to the first bombing the US dropped leaflets and broadcast radio transmissions asking for Japan to surrender. Not a peep, not even a peep after the first bomb went off. We can also speculate whether or not Japan would have surrendered if Russia wasn't going to enter the war. You would have a point if Japan kept going to the US and saying we surrender but the US was saying no.

And if we hadn't had the bombs, those two cities would have been bombed.

The were being carpet bombed every day so that was not expected. There was a two day gap between the first and second blast On the day after the first one they were still finding out in the rest of Japan what happened. We didn't have smartphones then of course.

The initiative for peace talks was not taken up. A ceasefire a few months earlier would have saved a lot of lives.

Why would anyone thing US foreign policy was any wiser than it is today?

How was it not expected? We asked them to surrender, they were losing badly and every they were continuing the fight even though they were losing. So yes, they should have said, "Yes we surrender". They didn't, the fight continued.