KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The invasion of Ukraine was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Iraq was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Grenada was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Mexico was justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasions of Canada were justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasion of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama were justified in geopolitical terms.

---

Thanks, but unfortunately I am not sure that answers my question, as I am not sure what you mean by "geopolitical" terms. Feel free to expand on that, but my question was from a Christian, JWT analysis.

See my previous questions. Among other things, did Biden's rhetoric pose an imminent threat to innocent Russian lives and did Russia exhaust all other options prior to invading?

---

I updated my previous post regarding Christian principles.

Geopolitical ( to me ) defines a country acting out in their perceived economic and or strategic best interest .

In my view, and certainly in Russia's view , years of talk was not preventing what certainly appeared to be Ukraine's inevitable admission into NATO.

Biden absolutely miscalculated even with 200,000 Russian troops along the border.

Putin absolutely underestimated Ukrainian courage, fighting skills and collective MEMORY of past abuses at the hands of previous Russian and Soviet regimes.

---

You seem to be forgetting that it was only after Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2014 that talk of Ukraine joining NATO heated up. And of course, Ukraine was a first hand witness to Russia's invasion of Georgia and shelling of Chechnya that helped contribute to Ukraine looking westward.

In short, Russia is largely responsible for pushing the former Soviet bloc toward Europe and NATO. But of course, you guys want to look at the NATO talk in a vacuum.

I also asked you whether you believed Russia's invasion was just under the JWT. Thoughts?

---

Looked back at several posts and still have no idea what JWT represents.


All I can tell you is Russia evaluated the situation and thought they had little choice but to invade.

From the Ukrainian perspective the invasion is evil and horrific.


Both sides are correct .

---

Just war theory. It has been discuss ad nauseam over the last 4 to 5 pages. I even listed some of the criteria for you in my previous post.

How do you know that Russia believed it had little choice? You can't get inside Putin's head. We're talking about an individual who has a history of aggression against Russia's neighbors. A guy who regularly engages in landgrab's perhaps you're buying the pretext while ignoring the real motive here. Perhaps Putin saw a very weak US administration, and decided to use it as an opportunity to grab more land.

Just a few things to consider. But I suppose you could take Russia's word for it, just like it hasn't killed numerous political dissidents, who allegedly died of natural causes. Lol.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The invasion of Ukraine was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Iraq was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Grenada was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Mexico was justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasions of Canada were justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasion of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama were justified in geopolitical terms.

---

Thanks, but unfortunately I am not sure that answers my question, as I am not sure what you mean by "geopolitical" terms. Feel free to expand on that, but my question was from a Christian, JWT analysis.

See my previous questions. Among other things, did Biden's rhetoric pose an imminent threat to innocent Russian lives and did Russia exhaust all other options prior to invading?

---

I updated my previous post regarding Christian principles.

Geopolitical ( to me ) defines a country acting out in their perceived economic and or strategic best interest .

In my view, and certainly in Russia's view , years of talk was not preventing what certainly appeared to be Ukraine's inevitable admission into NATO.

Biden absolutely miscalculated even with 200,000 Russian troops along the border.

Putin absolutely underestimated Ukrainian courage, fighting skills and collective MEMORY of past abuses at the hands of previous Russian and Soviet regimes.

---

You seem to be forgetting that it was only after Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2014 that talk of Ukraine joining NATO heated up. And of course, Ukraine was a first hand witness to Russia's invasion of Georgia and shelling of Chechnya that helped contribute to Ukraine looking westward.

In short, Russia is largely responsible for pushing the former Soviet bloc toward Europe and NATO. But of course, you guys want to look at the NATO talk in a vacuum.

I also asked you whether you believed Russia's invasion was just under the JWT. Thoughts?

---

Looked back at several posts and still have no idea what JWT represents.


All I can tell you is Russia evaluated the situation and thought they had little choice but to invade.

From the Ukrainian perspective the invasion is evil and horrific.


Both sides are correct .

---

Just war theory. It has been discuss ad nauseam over the last 4 to 5 pages. I even listed some of the criteria for you in my previous post.

How do you know that Russia believed it had little choice? You can't get inside Putin's head. We're talking about an individual who has a history of aggression against Russia's neighbors. A guy who regularly engages in landgrab's perhaps you're buying the pretext while ignoring the real motive here. Perhaps Putin saw a very weak US administration, and decided to use it as an opportunity to grab more land.

Just a few things to consider. But I suppose you could take Russia's word for it, just like it hasn't killed numerous political dissidents, who allegedly died of natural causes. Lol.

---

I don't put any credence into something called Just War Theory for the simple reason there is no such thing as a 'just 'war.

Especially to the poor people who get crippled or killed in it .
To the parents who see their children killed tortured or raped .

Almost all wars are caused by the miscalculations of a handful
of egomaniacs who rarely fight in them . If they did, there would be damn fewer wars .

' Just' or otherwise.

Ok we have discussed this topic far beyond any reasonable time limit.

You believe Putin to be totally or primarily responsible for this war.

I believe the Biden administration owns a large measure of the blame as well.

On to the next topic .

Peace Be With You

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

---

Are you saying that Putin is justified in invading and trying to overthrow the Ukraine govt. because of fighting that has been ongoing since 2014 in areas of Ukraine that Russia has tried to incorporate?

If so, man is that a weak argument. Ukraine posed no imminent threat of death to Russians, and nothing has changed in the skirmishes that have been ongoing since 2014 in the Donbas area of Ukraine to justify the recent invasion.

---

Okay, so hold on. It almost sounds like you're trying to have a real discussion here. On the other hand, as George W. Townshend 43 famously quothed, you can't get fooled again. Are you fooling me, Mothra?

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Say WHAT ?

For the sake of my Father serving off the coast of Japan in 1945 I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.

For the sake of hundreds of thousands of US Marines I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.


But to much of the rest of the world the US certainly had other options.. To drop the first Bomb as a demonstration offshore , a naval blockade that would have ended the war within 90 days , a negotiated settlement which in part guaranteed the continued status of the Emperor.



To much of the rest of the world the Bomb droppings were an unnecessary slaughter of 300,000 Japanese. The vast majority of whom were old men, women and children.

To much of the rest of the world the use of the Atomic bombs were racist . That white Americans might have been slightly less anxious to drop such horrific weapons on Germans, Bulgarians or Italians.

Guess all these millions throughout the world aren't dealing with reality .


Lucky us .

---

Most people in the region outside of Japan were happy we did what we did. So if you're talking about millions of new generations reflecting on history and building their own opinion who are decades removed from any of the horrors of the Pacific War, maybe have an axe to grind against the global hegemony it positioned us for, and whatever grievance may drive them, then sure I believe there are millions. I can tell you the nation that suffered the most at the hands of the Japanese, including civilian casualties 100 times greater than what the Japanese civilians experienced from any U.S. or Allied action, was incredibly thankful. You can repeat that sentiment in Korea, the Philippines, Indochina, etc. When the Emperor sent out his surrender message, there were still over a Million Japanese soldiers in China in addition to thousands of Kamikaze planes. Most were shocked by the message.

I know there is a deserving amount of empathy for the people who lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't question that. But to extend the point beyond WW2 is the world's understanding of the power of Atomic weapons demonstrated that week has helped provide a perspective of restraint even while the capabilities of those weapons has increased by massive orders of magnitude. That may have proven thus far the biggest life saver from that fateful action.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Dealing in your type of "reality" still carries a stiff penalty in Texas. Granted that some counties might look the other way if it's just for personal use…but I'm not taking any chances.

---

Complete myth.

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Say WHAT ?

For the sake of my Father serving off the coast of Japan in 1945 I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.

For the sake of hundreds of thousands of US Marines I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.


But to much of the rest of the world the US certainly had other options.. To drop the first Bomb as a demonstration offshore , a naval blockade that would have ended the war within 90 days , a negotiated settlement which in part guaranteed the continued status of the Emperor.



To much of the rest of the world the Bomb droppings were an unnecessary slaughter of 300,000 Japanese. The vast majority of whom were old men, women and children.

To much of the rest of the world the use of the Atomic bombs were racist . That white American might have been slightly less anxious to drop such horrific weapons on Germans, Bulgarians or Italians.

Guess all these millions throughout the world aren't dealing with reality .


Lucky us .

---

ATL is not seeing the same reality that the rest of the world does. Even some of the men who flew the fire-bombing missions hated what they were doing. The majority were probably okay with it, I don't deny that. But many reasonable people considered it to be a crime even then.

---

Men in war hate many things they're asked to do. That probably comes as a surprise to you.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Say WHAT ?

For the sake of my Father serving off the coast of Japan in 1945 I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.

For the sake of hundreds of thousands of US Marines I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.


But to much of the rest of the world the US certainly had other options.. To drop the first Bomb as a demonstration offshore , a naval blockade that would have ended the war within 90 days , a negotiated settlement which in part guaranteed the continued status of the Emperor.



To much of the rest of the world the Bomb droppings were an unnecessary slaughter of 300,000 Japanese. The vast majority of whom were old men, women and children.

To much of the rest of the world the use of the Atomic bombs were racist . That white American might have been slightly less anxious to drop such horrific weapons on Germans, Bulgarians or Italians.

Guess all these millions throughout the world aren't dealing with reality .


Lucky us .

---

ATL is not seeing the same reality that the rest of the world does. Even some of the men who flew the fire-bombing missions hated what they were doing. The majority were probably okay with it, I don't deny that. But many reasonable people considered it to be a crime even then.

---

Men in war hate many things they're asked to do. That probably comes as a surprise to you.

---

It doesn't come as a surprise to me because I'm a revisionist, remember? You're the one who thinks everyone was a knight in shining armor.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Say WHAT ?

For the sake of my Father serving off the coast of Japan in 1945 I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.

For the sake of hundreds of thousands of US Marines I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.


But to much of the rest of the world the US certainly had other options.. To drop the first Bomb as a demonstration offshore , a naval blockade that would have ended the war within 90 days , a negotiated settlement which in part guaranteed the continued status of the Emperor.



To much of the rest of the world the Bomb droppings were an unnecessary slaughter of 300,000 Japanese. The vast majority of whom were old men, women and children.

To much of the rest of the world the use of the Atomic bombs were racist . That white American might have been slightly less anxious to drop such horrific weapons on Germans, Bulgarians or Italians.

Guess all these millions throughout the world aren't dealing with reality .


Lucky us .

---

ATL is not seeing the same reality that the rest of the world does. Even some of the men who flew the fire-bombing missions hated what they were doing. The majority were probably okay with it, I don't deny that. But many reasonable people considered it to be a crime even then.

---

Men in war hate many things they're asked to do. That probably comes as a surprise to you.

---

It doesn't come as a surprise to me because I'm a revisionist, remember? You're the one who thinks everyone was a knight in shining armor.

---

It is only you who paints the broad brush and can't comprehend there's more than simplistic nuance between knights in shining armor and mass murderers.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Say WHAT ?

For the sake of my Father serving off the coast of Japan in 1945 I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.

For the sake of hundreds of thousands of US Marines I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.


But to much of the rest of the world the US certainly had other options.. To drop the first Bomb as a demonstration offshore , a naval blockade that would have ended the war within 90 days , a negotiated settlement which in part guaranteed the continued status of the Emperor.



To much of the rest of the world the Bomb droppings were an unnecessary slaughter of 300,000 Japanese. The vast majority of whom were old men, women and children.

To much of the rest of the world the use of the Atomic bombs were racist . That white American might have been slightly less anxious to drop such horrific weapons on Germans, Bulgarians or Italians.

Guess all these millions throughout the world aren't dealing with reality .


Lucky us .

---

ATL is not seeing the same reality that the rest of the world does. Even some of the men who flew the fire-bombing missions hated what they were doing. The majority were probably okay with it, I don't deny that. But many reasonable people considered it to be a crime even then.

---

Men in war hate many things they're asked to do. That probably comes as a surprise to you.

---

It doesn't come as a surprise to me because I'm a revisionist, remember? You're the one who thinks everyone was a knight in shining armor.

---

It is only you who paints the broad brush and can't comprehend there's more than simplistic nuance between knights in shining armor and mass murderers.

---

So you don't like the phrase and would rather hear a euphemism. They either murdered people en masse or they didn't. They did, and they at least had the moral intelligence to know it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Say WHAT ?

For the sake of my Father serving off the coast of Japan in 1945 I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.

For the sake of hundreds of thousands of US Marines I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.


But to much of the rest of the world the US certainly had other options.. To drop the first Bomb as a demonstration offshore , a naval blockade that would have ended the war within 90 days , a negotiated settlement which in part guaranteed the continued status of the Emperor.



To much of the rest of the world the Bomb droppings were an unnecessary slaughter of 300,000 Japanese. The vast majority of whom were old men, women and children.

To much of the rest of the world the use of the Atomic bombs were racist . That white American might have been slightly less anxious to drop such horrific weapons on Germans, Bulgarians or Italians.

Guess all these millions throughout the world aren't dealing with reality .


Lucky us .

---

ATL is not seeing the same reality that the rest of the world does. Even some of the men who flew the fire-bombing missions hated what they were doing. The majority were probably okay with it, I don't deny that. But many reasonable people considered it to be a crime even then.

---

Men in war hate many things they're asked to do. That probably comes as a surprise to you.

---

It doesn't come as a surprise to me because I'm a revisionist, remember? You're the one who thinks everyone was a knight in shining armor.

---

It is only you who paints the broad brush and can't comprehend there's more than simplistic nuance between knights in shining armor and mass murderers.

---

So you don't like the phrase and would rather hear a euphemism. They either murdered people en masse or they didn't. They did, and they at least had the moral intelligence to know it.

---

Who is "they"?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

---

Are you saying that Putin is justified in invading and trying to overthrow the Ukraine govt. because of fighting that has been ongoing since 2014 in areas of Ukraine that Russia has tried to incorporate?

If so, man is that a weak argument. Ukraine posed no imminent threat of death to Russians, and nothing has changed in the skirmishes that have been ongoing since 2014 in the Donbas area of Ukraine to justify the recent invasion.

---

Okay, so hold on. It almost sounds like you're trying to have a real discussion here. On the other hand, as George W. Townshend 43 famously quothed, you can't get fooled again. Are you fooling me, Mothra?

---

I am not sure it is possible to have a "real discussion" with you. You got my hopes up a few pages ago when your promised to get back with me regarding how the Ukraine invasion meets the elements of JWT (after taking a pot shot, of course: "I can tell that today was the day you finally googled the principles of just war. I'll address your specific points later, but kudos for that."), only for you to respond the next day with yet another snarky one liner instead of addressing the specific points.

You've never really made an argument regarding why Putin's war is just. A review of this thread will reveal you've said "rooting out the Nazis" was one of the reasons. The other reason seems to be preventing NATO from gaining a foothold and trying to break up Russia, though you've failed to cite evidence to support that was NATO's intention, or such a threat was imminent. You've cited to Putin's interview as justification, though you've failed to identify his specific arguments in support of same. And then of course you cited this article which you said touches on a few of the arguments, though once again, you fail to point those out.

Thus, in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you're as vague and unspecific as ever. While you allege others aren't interested in a "real discussion," I would submit that's nothing more than projection. The foregoing does not demonstrate an individual who is interested in any "real discussion."

Again, you have my questions. But if you would prefer snark to substance, I'd prefer to end our correspondence and for you to stop wasting everyone's time.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The invasion of Ukraine was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Iraq was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Grenada was justified in geopolitical terms.

Our invasion of Mexico was justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasions of Canada were justified in geopolitical terms .

Our invasion of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama were justified in geopolitical terms.

---

Thanks, but unfortunately I am not sure that answers my question, as I am not sure what you mean by "geopolitical" terms. Feel free to expand on that, but my question was from a Christian, JWT analysis.

See my previous questions. Among other things, did Biden's rhetoric pose an imminent threat to innocent Russian lives and did Russia exhaust all other options prior to invading?

---

I updated my previous post regarding Christian principles.

Geopolitical ( to me ) defines a country acting out in their perceived economic and or strategic best interest .

In my view, and certainly in Russia's view , years of talk was not preventing what certainly appeared to be Ukraine's inevitable admission into NATO.

Biden absolutely miscalculated even with 200,000 Russian troops along the border.

Putin absolutely underestimated Ukrainian courage, fighting skills and collective MEMORY of past abuses at the hands of previous Russian and Soviet regimes.

---

You seem to be forgetting that it was only after Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2014 that talk of Ukraine joining NATO heated up. And of course, Ukraine was a first hand witness to Russia's invasion of Georgia and shelling of Chechnya that helped contribute to Ukraine looking westward.

In short, Russia is largely responsible for pushing the former Soviet bloc toward Europe and NATO. But of course, you guys want to look at the NATO talk in a vacuum.

I also asked you whether you believed Russia's invasion was just under the JWT. Thoughts?

---

Looked back at several posts and still have no idea what JWT represents.


All I can tell you is Russia evaluated the situation and thought they had little choice but to invade.

From the Ukrainian perspective the invasion is evil and horrific.


Both sides are correct .

---

Just war theory. It has been discuss ad nauseam over the last 4 to 5 pages. I even listed some of the criteria for you in my previous post.

How do you know that Russia believed it had little choice? You can't get inside Putin's head. We're talking about an individual who has a history of aggression against Russia's neighbors. A guy who regularly engages in landgrab's perhaps you're buying the pretext while ignoring the real motive here. Perhaps Putin saw a very weak US administration, and decided to use it as an opportunity to grab more land.

Just a few things to consider. But I suppose you could take Russia's word for it, just like it hasn't killed numerous political dissidents, who allegedly died of natural causes. Lol.

---

I don't put any credence into something called Just War Theory for the simple reason there is no such thing as a 'just 'war.

Especially to the poor people who get crippled or killed in it .
To the parents who see their children killed tortured or raped .

Almost all wars are caused by the miscalculations of a handful
of egomaniacs who rarely fight in them . If they did, there would be damn fewer wars .

' Just' or otherwise.

Ok we have discussed this topic far beyond any reasonable time limit.

You believe Putin to be totally or primarily responsible for this war.

I believe the Biden administration owns a large measure of the blame as well.

On to the next topic .

Peace Be With You

---

Tell you what, let's put the labels aside then. Let's see if you can tell us whether you believe 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent Russian life; or 2) whether Russia exhausted all other options.

Thanks.

There was nothing "imminent" about Ukraine's threat to Russian lives. They were killing Russians for years before the invasion. Russia tried negotiating (Minsk, that the EU admitted was merely a ploy to buy time for Ukraine to gather military strength).

For some reason, you refuse to see that the NATO/Nuland axis of evil is the aggressor here.

Realitybites said:

---

There was nothing "imminent" about Ukraine's threat to Russian lives. They were killing Russians for years before the invasion. Russia tried negotiating (Minsk, that the EU admitted was merely a ploy to buy time for Ukraine to gather military strength).

For some reason, you refuse to see that the NATO/Nuland axis of evil is the aggressor here.

---

They were killing Russians because Russians were already invading as soldiers.

"Axis of evil" LOL. No.

Stupid vatnik gonna stupid.

Realitybites said:

---

There was nothing "imminent" about Ukraine's threat to Russian lives. They were killing Russians for years before the invasion. Russia tried negotiating (Minsk, that the EU admitted was merely a ploy to buy time for Ukraine to gather military strength).

For some reason, you refuse to see that the NATO/Nuland axis of evil is the aggressor here.

---

Are you talking about Russian soldiers who illegally invaded Ukraine in 2014? Well, duh. Of course the Ukrainians were killing the invading force.

Just FYI, roughly the same number of Ukrainian soldiers died in the 2014 conflict.

The fact that you paint Putin and Russia as the good guys, and NATO and the US as bad, says all one needs to know about you.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

---

Are you saying that Putin is justified in invading and trying to overthrow the Ukraine govt. because of fighting that has been ongoing since 2014 in areas of Ukraine that Russia has tried to incorporate?

If so, man is that a weak argument. Ukraine posed no imminent threat of death to Russians, and nothing has changed in the skirmishes that have been ongoing since 2014 in the Donbas area of Ukraine to justify the recent invasion.

---

Okay, so hold on. It almost sounds like you're trying to have a real discussion here. On the other hand, as George W. Townshend 43 famously quothed, you can't get fooled again. Are you fooling me, Mothra?

---

I am not sure it is possible to have a "real discussion" with you. You got my hopes up a few pages ago when your promised to get back with me regarding how the Ukraine invasion meets the elements of JWT (after taking a pot shot, of course: "I can tell that today was the day you finally googled the principles of just war. I'll address your specific points later, but kudos for that."), only for you to respond the next day with yet another snarky one liner instead of addressing the specific points.

You've never really made an argument regarding why Putin's war is just. A review of this thread will reveal you've said "rooting out the Nazis" was one of the reasons. The other reason seems to be preventing NATO from gaining a foothold and trying to break up Russia, though you've failed to cite evidence to support that was NATO's intention, or such a threat was imminent. You've cited to Putin's interview as justification, though you've failed to identify his specific arguments in support of same. And then of course you cited this article which you said touches on a few of the arguments, though once again, you fail to point those out.

Thus, in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you're as vague and unspecific as ever. While you allege others aren't interested in a "real discussion," I would submit that's nothing more than projection. The foregoing does not demonstrate an individual who is interested in any "real discussion."

Again, you have my questions. But if you would prefer snark to substance, I'd prefer to end our correspondence and for you to stop wasting everyone's time.

---

I did briefly address your points. It's true I haven't argued the just war issue in great detail. You're the one who's been fixated on that. As I said, I don't think imminent threat is necessarily the standard. Many formulations of the doctrine don't include it. One could also argue that the civil war in the Donbas more than fulfilled the requirement, as lives there were under threat or attack daily. Russia went to great lengths to solve the problem with the Minsk Agreement but had clearly failed by 2022. I don't know what else you think they could have done without cooperation from the West.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Say WHAT ?

For the sake of my Father serving off the coast of Japan in 1945 I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.

For the sake of hundreds of thousands of US Marines I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.


But to much of the rest of the world the US certainly had other options.. To drop the first Bomb as a demonstration offshore , a naval blockade that would have ended the war within 90 days , a negotiated settlement which in part guaranteed the continued status of the Emperor.



To much of the rest of the world the Bomb droppings were an unnecessary slaughter of 300,000 Japanese. The vast majority of whom were old men, women and children.

To much of the rest of the world the use of the Atomic bombs were racist . That white American might have been slightly less anxious to drop such horrific weapons on Germans, Bulgarians or Italians.

Guess all these millions throughout the world aren't dealing with reality .


Lucky us .

---

ATL is not seeing the same reality that the rest of the world does. Even some of the men who flew the fire-bombing missions hated what they were doing. The majority were probably okay with it, I don't deny that. But many reasonable people considered it to be a crime even then.

---

Men in war hate many things they're asked to do. That probably comes as a surprise to you.

---

It doesn't come as a surprise to me because I'm a revisionist, remember? You're the one who thinks everyone was a knight in shining armor.

---

It is only you who paints the broad brush and can't comprehend there's more than simplistic nuance between knights in shining armor and mass murderers.

---

So you don't like the phrase and would rather hear a euphemism. They either murdered people en masse or they didn't. They did, and they at least had the moral intelligence to know it.

---

Who is "they"?

---

Truman, McNamara, LeMay, for example.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

---

Are you saying that Putin is justified in invading and trying to overthrow the Ukraine govt. because of fighting that has been ongoing since 2014 in areas of Ukraine that Russia has tried to incorporate?

If so, man is that a weak argument. Ukraine posed no imminent threat of death to Russians, and nothing has changed in the skirmishes that have been ongoing since 2014 in the Donbas area of Ukraine to justify the recent invasion.

---

Okay, so hold on. It almost sounds like you're trying to have a real discussion here. On the other hand, as George W. Townshend 43 famously quothed, you can't get fooled again. Are you fooling me, Mothra?

---

I am not sure it is possible to have a "real discussion" with you. You got my hopes up a few pages ago when your promised to get back with me regarding how the Ukraine invasion meets the elements of JWT (after taking a pot shot, of course: "I can tell that today was the day you finally googled the principles of just war. I'll address your specific points later, but kudos for that."), only for you to respond the next day with yet another snarky one liner instead of addressing the specific points.

You've never really made an argument regarding why Putin's war is just. A review of this thread will reveal you've said "rooting out the Nazis" was one of the reasons. The other reason seems to be preventing NATO from gaining a foothold and trying to break up Russia, though you've failed to cite evidence to support that was NATO's intention, or such a threat was imminent. You've cited to Putin's interview as justification, though you've failed to identify his specific arguments in support of same. And then of course you cited this article which you said touches on a few of the arguments, though once again, you fail to point those out.

Thus, in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you're as vague and unspecific as ever. While you allege others aren't interested in a "real discussion," I would submit that's nothing more than projection. The foregoing does not demonstrate an individual who is interested in any "real discussion."

Again, you have my questions. But if you would prefer snark to substance, I'd prefer to end our correspondence and for you to stop wasting everyone's time.

---

I did briefly address your points. It's true I haven't argued the just war issue in great detail. You're the one who's been fixated on that. As I said, I don't think imminent threat is necessarily the standard. Many formulations of the doctrine don't include it. One could also argue that the civil war in the Donbas more than fulfilled the requirement, as lives there were under threat or attack daily. Russia went to great lengths to solve the problem with the Minsk Agreement but had clearly failed by 2022. I don't know what else you think they could have done without cooperation from the West.

---

LMAO. No, cuck.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

---

Are you saying that Putin is justified in invading and trying to overthrow the Ukraine govt. because of fighting that has been ongoing since 2014 in areas of Ukraine that Russia has tried to incorporate?

If so, man is that a weak argument. Ukraine posed no imminent threat of death to Russians, and nothing has changed in the skirmishes that have been ongoing since 2014 in the Donbas area of Ukraine to justify the recent invasion.

---

Okay, so hold on. It almost sounds like you're trying to have a real discussion here. On the other hand, as George W. Townshend 43 famously quothed, you can't get fooled again. Are you fooling me, Mothra?

---

I am not sure it is possible to have a "real discussion" with you. You got my hopes up a few pages ago when your promised to get back with me regarding how the Ukraine invasion meets the elements of JWT (after taking a pot shot, of course: "I can tell that today was the day you finally googled the principles of just war. I'll address your specific points later, but kudos for that."), only for you to respond the next day with yet another snarky one liner instead of addressing the specific points.

You've never really made an argument regarding why Putin's war is just. A review of this thread will reveal you've said "rooting out the Nazis" was one of the reasons. The other reason seems to be preventing NATO from gaining a foothold and trying to break up Russia, though you've failed to cite evidence to support that was NATO's intention, or such a threat was imminent. You've cited to Putin's interview as justification, though you've failed to identify his specific arguments in support of same. And then of course you cited this article which you said touches on a few of the arguments, though once again, you fail to point those out.

Thus, in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you're as vague and unspecific as ever. While you allege others aren't interested in a "real discussion," I would submit that's nothing more than projection. The foregoing does not demonstrate an individual who is interested in any "real discussion."

Again, you have my questions. But if you would prefer snark to substance, I'd prefer to end our correspondence and for you to stop wasting everyone's time.

---

I did briefly address your points. It's true I haven't argued the just war issue in great detail. You're the one who's been fixated on that. As I said, I don't think imminent threat is necessarily the standard. Many formulations of the doctrine don't include it. One could also argue that the civil war in the Donbas more than fulfilled the requirement, as lives there were under threat or attack daily. Russia went to great lengths to solve the problem with the Minsk Agreement but had clearly failed by 2022. I don't know what else you think they could have done without cooperation from the West.

---

Appreciate the half hearted attempt to answer.

So Russia illegally invades and essentially incorporates portions of Ukraine, in violation of its security assurances, and because the Ukrainians weren't willing to allow that to go unchecked and have continued to fight the Russians, Russia had no other choice but to invade due to little assistance from the West.

Are we going to completely ignore the backstory of how the skirmish began? Are we to completely ignore the fact that Russia had other choices. One of those was not engaging in aggressive actions in the first place. Another was withdrawing Russian forces. In short, you seem to want to treat Minsk in a vacuum while ignoring essential facts.

As for JWT, I pointed out the well recognized essential elements. But feel free to put forth an alternative theory and make the argument if you can.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

---

Are you saying that Putin is justified in invading and trying to overthrow the Ukraine govt. because of fighting that has been ongoing since 2014 in areas of Ukraine that Russia has tried to incorporate?

If so, man is that a weak argument. Ukraine posed no imminent threat of death to Russians, and nothing has changed in the skirmishes that have been ongoing since 2014 in the Donbas area of Ukraine to justify the recent invasion.

---

Okay, so hold on. It almost sounds like you're trying to have a real discussion here. On the other hand, as George W. Townshend 43 famously quothed, you can't get fooled again. Are you fooling me, Mothra?

---

I am not sure it is possible to have a "real discussion" with you. You got my hopes up a few pages ago when your promised to get back with me regarding how the Ukraine invasion meets the elements of JWT (after taking a pot shot, of course: "I can tell that today was the day you finally googled the principles of just war. I'll address your specific points later, but kudos for that."), only for you to respond the next day with yet another snarky one liner instead of addressing the specific points.

You've never really made an argument regarding why Putin's war is just. A review of this thread will reveal you've said "rooting out the Nazis" was one of the reasons. The other reason seems to be preventing NATO from gaining a foothold and trying to break up Russia, though you've failed to cite evidence to support that was NATO's intention, or such a threat was imminent. You've cited to Putin's interview as justification, though you've failed to identify his specific arguments in support of same. And then of course you cited this article which you said touches on a few of the arguments, though once again, you fail to point those out.

Thus, in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you're as vague and unspecific as ever. While you allege others aren't interested in a "real discussion," I would submit that's nothing more than projection. The foregoing does not demonstrate an individual who is interested in any "real discussion."

Again, you have my questions. But if you would prefer snark to substance, I'd prefer to end our correspondence and for you to stop wasting everyone's time.

---

I did briefly address your points. It's true I haven't argued the just war issue in great detail. You're the one who's been fixated on that. As I said, I don't think imminent threat is necessarily the standard. Many formulations of the doctrine don't include it. One could also argue that the civil war in the Donbas more than fulfilled the requirement, as lives there were under threat or attack daily. Russia went to great lengths to solve the problem with the Minsk Agreement but had clearly failed by 2022. I don't know what else you think they could have done without cooperation from the West.

---

Appreciate the half hearted attempt to answer.

So Russia illegally invades and essentially incorporates portions of Ukraine, in violation of its security assurances, and because the Ukrainians weren't willing to allow that to go unchecked and have continued to fight the Russians, Russia had no other choice but to invade due to little assistance from the West.

Are we going to completely ignore the backstory of how the skirmish began? Are we to completely ignore the fact that Russia had other choices. One of those was not engaging in aggressive actions in the first place. Another was withdrawing Russian forces. In short, you seem to want to treat Minsk in a vacuum while ignoring essential facts.

As for JWT, I pointed out the well recognized essential elements. But feel free to put forth an alternative theory and make the argument if you can.

---

I'm not sure which "aggressive actions" by Russia you're referring to. Kiev was the initial aggressor in the Donbas. If you mean Russia didn't meet the last resort standard because they could have chosen to do nothing, that's always a possibility in any dispute. No war would ever be justified by that standard.

Stating the elements of JWT is quite a complicated matter. There are at least several traditions, not just one, and some of the same elements have different meanings depending on which tradition you're referring to. In its classic form, as stated by Aquinas, the doctrine contains only three elements: sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention. Last resort and imminent threat are more recently developed standards which are supposed to help answer the fundamental questions.

The overthrow of Ukraine's government and subsequent civil war were grave public evils. If any country involved lacked a legitimate sovereign authority, it was Ukraine. The de facto military alliance with the US and proposed membership in NATO were serious violations of its agreements with Russia. The dismantling of the arms control framework in Europe threatened Russia and the world, making it all the more important to keep NATO weapons out of Ukraine. This is all part of the context that can't be ignored.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

---

Are you saying that Putin is justified in invading and trying to overthrow the Ukraine govt. because of fighting that has been ongoing since 2014 in areas of Ukraine that Russia has tried to incorporate?

If so, man is that a weak argument. Ukraine posed no imminent threat of death to Russians, and nothing has changed in the skirmishes that have been ongoing since 2014 in the Donbas area of Ukraine to justify the recent invasion.

---

Okay, so hold on. It almost sounds like you're trying to have a real discussion here. On the other hand, as George W. Townshend 43 famously quothed, you can't get fooled again. Are you fooling me, Mothra?

---

I am not sure it is possible to have a "real discussion" with you. You got my hopes up a few pages ago when your promised to get back with me regarding how the Ukraine invasion meets the elements of JWT (after taking a pot shot, of course: "I can tell that today was the day you finally googled the principles of just war. I'll address your specific points later, but kudos for that."), only for you to respond the next day with yet another snarky one liner instead of addressing the specific points.

You've never really made an argument regarding why Putin's war is just. A review of this thread will reveal you've said "rooting out the Nazis" was one of the reasons. The other reason seems to be preventing NATO from gaining a foothold and trying to break up Russia, though you've failed to cite evidence to support that was NATO's intention, or such a threat was imminent. You've cited to Putin's interview as justification, though you've failed to identify his specific arguments in support of same. And then of course you cited this article which you said touches on a few of the arguments, though once again, you fail to point those out.

Thus, in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you're as vague and unspecific as ever. While you allege others aren't interested in a "real discussion," I would submit that's nothing more than projection. The foregoing does not demonstrate an individual who is interested in any "real discussion."

Again, you have my questions. But if you would prefer snark to substance, I'd prefer to end our correspondence and for you to stop wasting everyone's time.

---

I did briefly address your points. It's true I haven't argued the just war issue in great detail. You're the one who's been fixated on that. As I said, I don't think imminent threat is necessarily the standard. Many formulations of the doctrine don't include it. One could also argue that the civil war in the Donbas more than fulfilled the requirement, as lives there were under threat or attack daily. Russia went to great lengths to solve the problem with the Minsk Agreement but had clearly failed by 2022. I don't know what else you think they could have done without cooperation from the West.

---

Appreciate the half hearted attempt to answer.

So Russia illegally invades and essentially incorporates portions of Ukraine, in violation of its security assurances, and because the Ukrainians weren't willing to allow that to go unchecked and have continued to fight the Russians, Russia had no other choice but to invade due to little assistance from the West.

Are we going to completely ignore the backstory of how the skirmish began? Are we to completely ignore the fact that Russia had other choices. One of those was not engaging in aggressive actions in the first place. Another was withdrawing Russian forces. In short, you seem to want to treat Minsk in a vacuum while ignoring essential facts.

As for JWT, I pointed out the well recognized essential elements. But feel free to put forth an alternative theory and make the argument if you can.

---

I'm not sure which "aggressive actions" by Russia you're referring to. Kiev was the initial aggressor in the Donbas. If you mean Russia didn't meet the last resort standard because they could have chosen to do nothing, that's always a possibility in any dispute. No war would ever be justified by that standard.

Stating the elements of JWT is quite a complicated matter. There are at least several traditions, not just one, and some of the same elements have different meanings depending on which tradition you're referring to. In its classic form, as stated by Aquinas, the doctrine contains only three elements: sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention. Last resort and imminent threat are more recently developed standards which are supposed to help answer the fundamental questions.

The overthrow of Ukraine's government and subsequent civil war were grave public evils. If any country involved lacked a legitimate sovereign authority, it was Ukraine. The de facto military alliance with the US and proposed membership in NATO were serious violations of its agreements with Russia. The dismantling of the arms control framework in Europe threatened Russia and the world, making it all the more important to keep NATO weapons out of Ukraine. This is all part of the context that can't be ignored.

---

More straight-up Russian propaganda. "Initial aggressor" "Civil war" There's no context to ignore because it's BS and should be dismissed as so.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

---

Are you saying that Putin is justified in invading and trying to overthrow the Ukraine govt. because of fighting that has been ongoing since 2014 in areas of Ukraine that Russia has tried to incorporate?

If so, man is that a weak argument. Ukraine posed no imminent threat of death to Russians, and nothing has changed in the skirmishes that have been ongoing since 2014 in the Donbas area of Ukraine to justify the recent invasion.

---

Okay, so hold on. It almost sounds like you're trying to have a real discussion here. On the other hand, as George W. Townshend 43 famously quothed, you can't get fooled again. Are you fooling me, Mothra?

---

I am not sure it is possible to have a "real discussion" with you. You got my hopes up a few pages ago when your promised to get back with me regarding how the Ukraine invasion meets the elements of JWT (after taking a pot shot, of course: "I can tell that today was the day you finally googled the principles of just war. I'll address your specific points later, but kudos for that."), only for you to respond the next day with yet another snarky one liner instead of addressing the specific points.

You've never really made an argument regarding why Putin's war is just. A review of this thread will reveal you've said "rooting out the Nazis" was one of the reasons. The other reason seems to be preventing NATO from gaining a foothold and trying to break up Russia, though you've failed to cite evidence to support that was NATO's intention, or such a threat was imminent. You've cited to Putin's interview as justification, though you've failed to identify his specific arguments in support of same. And then of course you cited this article which you said touches on a few of the arguments, though once again, you fail to point those out.

Thus, in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you're as vague and unspecific as ever. While you allege others aren't interested in a "real discussion," I would submit that's nothing more than projection. The foregoing does not demonstrate an individual who is interested in any "real discussion."

Again, you have my questions. But if you would prefer snark to substance, I'd prefer to end our correspondence and for you to stop wasting everyone's time.

---

I did briefly address your points. It's true I haven't argued the just war issue in great detail. You're the one who's been fixated on that. As I said, I don't think imminent threat is necessarily the standard. Many formulations of the doctrine don't include it. One could also argue that the civil war in the Donbas more than fulfilled the requirement, as lives there were under threat or attack daily. Russia went to great lengths to solve the problem with the Minsk Agreement but had clearly failed by 2022. I don't know what else you think they could have done without cooperation from the West.

---

Appreciate the half hearted attempt to answer.

So Russia illegally invades and essentially incorporates portions of Ukraine, in violation of its security assurances, and because the Ukrainians weren't willing to allow that to go unchecked and have continued to fight the Russians, Russia had no other choice but to invade due to little assistance from the West.

Are we going to completely ignore the backstory of how the skirmish began? Are we to completely ignore the fact that Russia had other choices. One of those was not engaging in aggressive actions in the first place. Another was withdrawing Russian forces. In short, you seem to want to treat Minsk in a vacuum while ignoring essential facts.

As for JWT, I pointed out the well recognized essential elements. But feel free to put forth an alternative theory and make the argument if you can.

---

The de facto military alliance with the US and proposed membership in NATO were serious violations of its agreements with Russia. The dismantling of the arms control framework in Europe threatened Russia and the world, making it all the more important to keep NATO weapons out of Ukraine. This is all part of the context that can't be ignored.

---

Good summation.

Unfortunately most Americans don't have the slightest clue what had been occurring in Ukraine prior to the Russian invasion..

Most still don't.

So they just ignore whatever realities are too time consuming to learn.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You know you've lost the argument when you're guilty of that of which you accuse others.

Does the firm hide you in the back and let you research? Surely they don't allow you to make arguments. You're terrible at it, and I am sure the clients would despise you.

---

I don't work for a firm. I spend most of my time personally attacking other lawyers and imagining I've won the argument.

---

Ah, solo. in-house or govt. lawyer then. That explains a lot. Good choice.

Here's praying you find God.

---

Gonna keep looking to Aquinas and Catholic tradition.

---

This explains more than you know. Look to everything but the bible. It figures.

The irony is, Catholocism has had much influence on JWT, and the elements I referenced above, which you've been unable to show the Putin War meets. So I guess you're going to have to look somewhere else to support your beliefs.

---

Again, understand the doctrine before passing judgment.

---

Happy to have a discussion about what you allege I've misunderstood.

---

I really wish that we could. Most people on this board can at least follow a train of thought and separate one issue from another. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it just doesn't seem possible with you. I don't know what else to say.

---

In other words, instead of defending your position, you would rather engage in obfuscation and accuse the other party of misunderstandings.

Exactly what anyone who has experience debating you would have expected. It's why you have such trouble winning people to your positions, and have difficulty making cogent arguments. You tuck tail and run when someone calls out your bull*****

Let me know if you grow a backbone.

---

It's not my back that you've broken, it's my patience. Let me know if you learn to read.

---

As a reminder, despite repeated promises, you've offered no evidence to support a claim that 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.

---

As a reminder, I've never claimed that Ukraine was an imminent threat to lives within the borders of Russia proper. Obviously they were more than just a threat to the Donbas, and I do think they left Putin without alternatives.

---

Are you saying that Putin is justified in invading and trying to overthrow the Ukraine govt. because of fighting that has been ongoing since 2014 in areas of Ukraine that Russia has tried to incorporate?

If so, man is that a weak argument. Ukraine posed no imminent threat of death to Russians, and nothing has changed in the skirmishes that have been ongoing since 2014 in the Donbas area of Ukraine to justify the recent invasion.

---

Okay, so hold on. It almost sounds like you're trying to have a real discussion here. On the other hand, as George W. Townshend 43 famously quothed, you can't get fooled again. Are you fooling me, Mothra?

---

I am not sure it is possible to have a "real discussion" with you. You got my hopes up a few pages ago when your promised to get back with me regarding how the Ukraine invasion meets the elements of JWT (after taking a pot shot, of course: "I can tell that today was the day you finally googled the principles of just war. I'll address your specific points later, but kudos for that."), only for you to respond the next day with yet another snarky one liner instead of addressing the specific points.

You've never really made an argument regarding why Putin's war is just. A review of this thread will reveal you've said "rooting out the Nazis" was one of the reasons. The other reason seems to be preventing NATO from gaining a foothold and trying to break up Russia, though you've failed to cite evidence to support that was NATO's intention, or such a threat was imminent. You've cited to Putin's interview as justification, though you've failed to identify his specific arguments in support of same. And then of course you cited this article which you said touches on a few of the arguments, though once again, you fail to point those out.

Thus, in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you're as vague and unspecific as ever. While you allege others aren't interested in a "real discussion," I would submit that's nothing more than projection. The foregoing does not demonstrate an individual who is interested in any "real discussion."

Again, you have my questions. But if you would prefer snark to substance, I'd prefer to end our correspondence and for you to stop wasting everyone's time.

---

I did briefly address your points. It's true I haven't argued the just war issue in great detail. You're the one who's been fixated on that. As I said, I don't think imminent threat is necessarily the standard. Many formulations of the doctrine don't include it. One could also argue that the civil war in the Donbas more than fulfilled the requirement, as lives there were under threat or attack daily. Russia went to great lengths to solve the problem with the Minsk Agreement but had clearly failed by 2022. I don't know what else you think they could have done without cooperation from the West.

---

Appreciate the half hearted attempt to answer.

So Russia illegally invades and essentially incorporates portions of Ukraine, in violation of its security assurances, and because the Ukrainians weren't willing to allow that to go unchecked and have continued to fight the Russians, Russia had no other choice but to invade due to little assistance from the West.

Are we going to completely ignore the backstory of how the skirmish began? Are we to completely ignore the fact that Russia had other choices. One of those was not engaging in aggressive actions in the first place. Another was withdrawing Russian forces. In short, you seem to want to treat Minsk in a vacuum while ignoring essential facts.

As for JWT, I pointed out the well recognized essential elements. But feel free to put forth an alternative theory and make the argument if you can.

---

I'm not sure which "aggressive actions" by Russia you're referring to. Kiev was the initial aggressor in the Donbas. If you mean Russia didn't meet the last resort standard because they could have chosen to do nothing, that's always a possibility in any dispute. No war would ever be justified by that standard.

Stating the elements of JWT is quite a complicated matter. There are at least several traditions, not just one, and some of the same elements have different meanings depending on which tradition you're referring to. In its classic form, as stated by Aquinas, the doctrine contains only three elements: sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention. Last resort and imminent threat are more recently developed standards which are supposed to help answer the fundamental questions.

The overthrow of Ukraine's government and subsequent civil war were grave public evils. If any country involved lacked a legitimate sovereign authority, it was Ukraine. The de facto military alliance with the US and proposed membership in NATO were serious violations of its agreements with Russia. The dismantling of the arms control framework in Europe threatened Russia and the world, making it all the more important to keep NATO weapons out of Ukraine. This is all part of the context that can't be ignored.

---

"I'm not sure which "aggressive actions" by Russia you're referring to."

Most reasonable people would view an invasion of a country by an occupying force and recognition and support of a separatist govt. as an "aggressive action." That is of course how the war in Donbas started, with Russians invading and installing their own hand-picked separatist govt. Naturally, following the invasion, Ukraine launched a counter-offensive designed to take back control of Ukrainian territory from the Russians and their separatists.

Russia could have of course chosen to allow a sovereign country to work its own issues out, but we of course all know why it chose intervention and aggression.

As for the "overthrow" of the Ukrainian govt., it's interesting you see that as a "grave evil." Pray tell, why was it such a grace evil? The Maidan Revolution was relatively bloodless, with a little more than 100 protestors dying at the hands of Ukrainian armed forces, and the President at the time choosing to flee Ukraine and cede control. I suppose you are merely looking at it from a Russian perspective. It of course didn't serve the strategic interest of the little despot who controls Russia, and wants to continue to commit bad acts in the world. But that's Ukraine's battle, not Russia's. There was no immediate threat to Russia, of course.

Russia's so-called invasion began at Sloviansk, where it was supported by local authorities. It was also relatively bloodless by your standard, with about 100 deaths reported. Until then Russia had been involved in uprisings across the Donbas in much the same way we were involved in Maidan. The difference being that separatists in the Donbas didn't claim to speak for all of Ukraine. Maidan was a great evil because, among other reasons, it cemented the extremist position in Kiev and disenfranchised much of the rest of the country. It was an act of aggression not only by the usurpers in Kiev against the Donbas, but by the West against Russia as part of our effort to overthrow the regime. Keep in mind that this is a proxy war. Russia has never considered Ukraine to be the real opponent, and rightly so.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.

And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.

---

That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.

---

So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.

Only in America, folks.

---

Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.

---

Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.

All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.

Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.

---

Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.

---

If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.

---

Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.

---

Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.

---

I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?

---

You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.

---

You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.

You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.

---

Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.

---

You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.

---

Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.

---

In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.

---

Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.

---

The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.

---

You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.

---

With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.

---

With all due respect, anyone calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder isn't dealing in reality.

---

Say WHAT ?

For the sake of my Father serving off the coast of Japan in 1945 I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.

For the sake of hundreds of thousands of US Marines I am glad the Bomb helped end the war.


But to much of the rest of the world the US certainly had other options.. To drop the first Bomb as a demonstration offshore , a naval blockade that would have ended the war within 90 days , a negotiated settlement which in part guaranteed the continued status of the Emperor.



To much of the rest of the world the Bomb droppings were an unnecessary slaughter of 300,000 Japanese. The vast majority of whom were old men, women and children.

To much of the rest of the world the use of the Atomic bombs were racist . That white American might have been slightly less anxious to drop such horrific weapons on Germans, Bulgarians or Italians.

Guess all these millions throughout the world aren't dealing with reality .


Lucky us .

---

ATL is not seeing the same reality that the rest of the world does. Even some of the men who flew the fire-bombing missions hated what they were doing. The majority were probably okay with it, I don't deny that. But many reasonable people considered it to be a crime even then.

---

Men in war hate many things they're asked to do. That probably comes as a surprise to you.

---

It doesn't come as a surprise to me because I'm a revisionist, remember? You're the one who thinks everyone was a knight in shining armor.

---

It is only you who paints the broad brush and can't comprehend there's more than simplistic nuance between knights in shining armor and mass murderers.

---

So you don't like the phrase and would rather hear a euphemism. They either murdered people en masse or they didn't. They did, and they at least had the moral intelligence to know it.

---

Who is "they"?

---

Truman, McNamara, LeMay, for example.

---

I'll give you McNamara on his reflection of lessons learned. I think his real regret was Vietnam and he was lamenting quite a bit. I'm not aware of Lemay's regret, just a comment McNamara used nor Truman.

But all of this was done as retrospective evaluation of war in general. We learned many things in WW2 as it was the culmination of mass warfare with weapons of real mass destruction never seen or used before (and I don't just mean Atomic). The Fog of War was just one of dozens of discussions being had both public and private globally about the nature of war and "rules" in the age of nuclear and mass destruction weapon capabilities, taking into account primarily the experiences of WW2. It was the advance of aerial warfare that brought this about. In fact, more devastating than the Atomic bomb was the building of the B-29 that reset the amount of destruction over large areas from altitudes above anti aircraft capabilities, long ranges, and with giant bomb payloads. But there were no precision munitions and targets were broad objectives, i.e if a town had a munition facility or a base or a strategic benefit, it was bombed, often multiple times. And yes, the terror of the bombing was a tactic.

But all of it, even McNamara's, was a latter reflection under the prism of the lessons learned since that war. Which is what your application is. The Japanese and Germans heavily violated previously established "rules" regarding civilians, POWs, etc. in WW2.

Aerial warfare allowed us to attack enemies with fewer fighters and maximum impact. We could disrupt supply chains without having to gain ground with tanks, artillery and soldiers. But it also came with a much less discriminate attack mechanism and it would come at you moving at high speeds from long distances mostly unfettered. So trying to frame this new battle world as a war crime is wrong even if the civilian costs were great. We started answering the right "rules and morality" of the new power after we fully understood what we had the capacity for. And even the "losers" weren't prosecuted for there utilization of the same tactics.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia's so-called invasion began at Sloviansk, where it was supported by local authorities. It was also relatively bloodless by your standard, with about 100 deaths reported. Until then Russia had been involved in uprisings across the Donbas in much the same way we were involved in Maidan. The difference being that separatists in the Donbas didn't claim to speak for all of Ukraine. Maidan was a great evil because, among other reasons, it cemented the extremist position in Kiev and disenfranchised much of the rest of the country. It was an act of aggression not only by the usurpers in Kiev against the Donbas, but by the West against Russia as part of our effort to overthrow the regime. Keep in mind that this is a proxy war. Russia has never considered Ukraine to be the real opponent, and rightly so.

---

Keep in mind you continue to show you are a lying Russian stooge.

I agree with a lot of that, but you're missing the key point. The mass destruction of civilians by nuclear and fire-bombing wasn't just an accident of technology. We didn't have the precision weapons that we have now, but we had the ability to identify and target military sites, even if there was collateral damage. I'm not calling that a crime. What we did in these cases was target whole cities mainly in order to terrorize. Any military value was at best secondary if not pretextual. In that sense it was no different from the more up close and personal atrocities committed by the Japanese, even if the methods were more sophisticated. We're not more civilized just because we lack the will to look our victims in the eye.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree with a lot of that, but you're missing the key point. The mass destruction of civilians by nuclear and fire-bombing wasn't just an accident of technology. We didn't have the precision weapons that we have now, but we had the ability to identify and target military sites, even if there was collateral damage. I'm not calling that a crime. What we did in these cases was target whole cities mainly in order to terrorize. Any military value was at best secondary if not pretextual. In that sense it was no different from the more up close and personal atrocities committed by the Japanese, even if the methods were more sophisticated. We're not more civilized just because we lack the will to look our victims in the eye.

---

I disagree on several levels. But the primary one is that conquered civilians and POWs have surrendered and there is absolutely no military objective, secondary, pretextual, or otherwise. That's the difference between the brutality of war and just brutality.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree with a lot of that, but you're missing the key point. The mass destruction of civilians by nuclear and fire-bombing wasn't just an accident of technology. We didn't have the precision weapons that we have now, but we had the ability to identify and target military sites, even if there was collateral damage. I'm not calling that a crime. What we did in these cases was target whole cities mainly in order to terrorize. Any military value was at best secondary if not pretextual. In that sense it was no different from the more up close and personal atrocities committed by the Japanese, even if the methods were more sophisticated. We're not more civilized just because we lack the will to look our victims in the eye.

---

I disagree on several levels. But the primary one is that conquered civilians and POWs have surrendered and there is absolutely no military objective, secondary, pretextual, or otherwise. That's the difference between the brutality of war and just brutality.

---

In any case, the fact that Japan may have committed worse crimes doesn't mean a crime isn't a crime. Denial only makes it more likely to be repeated (and yes, the Japanese are guilty of that too).

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russia's so-called invasion began at Sloviansk, where it was supported by local authorities. It was also relatively bloodless by your standard, with about 100 deaths reported. Until then Russia had been involved in uprisings across the Donbas in much the same way we were involved in Maidan. The difference being that separatists in the Donbas didn't claim to speak for all of Ukraine. Maidan was a great evil because, among other reasons, it cemented the extremist position in Kiev and disenfranchised much of the rest of the country. It was an act of aggression not only by the usurpers in Kiev against the Donbas, but by the West against Russia as part of our effort to overthrow the regime. Keep in mind that this is a proxy war. Russia has never considered Ukraine to be the real opponent, and rightly so.

---

Not sure there's anything else to call it other than invasion when your neighbor enters your sovereign territory and takes control of same by force. That's kind of the textbook definition of invasion, is it not?

As for Maidan, it's pretty difficult to call the protestor's position extremist given the fact that the majority of the country agreed with it. The vast majority of Ukrainians supported the European UnionUkraine Association Agreement, and all indications were that Yanukovych did as well, and intended to sign it, only for him to cave to threats and pressure from Russia and scuttle the deal. It was a great betrayal to most Ukrainians, the vast majority of which desired greater freedoms and closer associations with the western democracies of Europe rather than the bad actor and bully to the east. If by "evil" you mean it didn't benefit the Russians, well sure, but what business of that is theirs? Ukraine is a sovereign country that should have been able to choose its own path.

As for the West, you really give it way too much credit for Maidan. It's involvement has been vastly overblown.

Edit: BTW, when I said the Maidan Revolution was relatively bloodless, with a little more than 100 protestors dying at the hands of Ukrainian armed forces, the protestors who died supported the ouster of Yanukovych, just FYI. So the people dying were those who you accuse of committing a "grave evil," not those who supported Mother Russia. That being the case, I am a bit surprised you have a problem with their deaths.

---

The economic agreement wasn't some simplistic ideological choice. It wasn't about accepting or rejecting "freedom." According to a USAID poll from late 2013, 47% of Ukrainians thought closer economic ties with the EU would benefit Ukraine. 48% thought closer economic ties with Russia would benefit Ukraine. The poll didn't ask about closer economic ties with both, since USAID wasn't interested in that, but the response would have been overwhelmingly positive. Russia itself was open to trilateral negotiations, and Yanukovych made that request to the EU. They refused to talk.

One thing Ukrainians did agree on was their dislike of the IMF's proposed austerity measures. These measures were harshly criticized even in Western media. See for example here, here, and here. This was a major point of contention and the main reason Yanukovych delayed signing the agreement. There's no reason it couldn't have been resolved with further talks if he hadn't been overthrown. But again there was zero interest in the West. We immediately jumped on the revolutionary bandwagon and focused on getting our hand-picked people in power.

Sam: "Denial only makes it more likely to be repeated "

And so Sam inadvertently explains Putin's Foreign Policy in the 21st Century in a single phrase.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree with a lot of that, but you're missing the key point. The mass destruction of civilians by nuclear and fire-bombing wasn't just an accident of technology. We didn't have the precision weapons that we have now, but we had the ability to identify and target military sites, even if there was collateral damage. I'm not calling that a crime. What we did in these cases was target whole cities mainly in order to terrorize. Any military value was at best secondary if not pretextual. In that sense it was no different from the more up close and personal atrocities committed by the Japanese, even if the methods were more sophisticated. We're not more civilized just because we lack the will to look our victims in the eye.

---

I disagree on several levels. But the primary one is that conquered civilians and POWs have surrendered and there is absolutely no military objective, secondary, pretextual, or otherwise. That's the difference between the brutality of war and just brutality.

---

In any case, the fact that Japan may have committed worse crimes doesn't mean a crime isn't a crime. Denial only makes it more likely to be repeated (and yes, the Japanese are guilty of that too).

---

Your fallacy is believing that during that era it was a crime to bomb an enemy city during an active war. Neither the Nazis or Japanese were evaluated on war crimes having to do with, for example, bombing London or Manila, etc. Had we returned to Tokyo with a bombing run after surrender, you might have a point. Again, you're applying the modern prism on a review of history.

---

Churchill certainly thought the bombing of London was a war crime .

Right up until the moment the British began bombing Berlin .

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree with a lot of that, but you're missing the key point. The mass destruction of civilians by nuclear and fire-bombing wasn't just an accident of technology. We didn't have the precision weapons that we have now, but we had the ability to identify and target military sites, even if there was collateral damage. I'm not calling that a crime. What we did in these cases was target whole cities mainly in order to terrorize. Any military value was at best secondary if not pretextual. In that sense it was no different from the more up close and personal atrocities committed by the Japanese, even if the methods were more sophisticated. We're not more civilized just because we lack the will to look our victims in the eye.

---

I disagree on several levels. But the primary one is that conquered civilians and POWs have surrendered and there is absolutely no military objective, secondary, pretextual, or otherwise. That's the difference between the brutality of war and just brutality.

---

In any case, the fact that Japan may have committed worse crimes doesn't mean a crime isn't a crime. Denial only makes it more likely to be repeated (and yes, the Japanese are guilty of that too).

---

Your fallacy is believing that during that era it was a crime to bomb an enemy city during an active war. Neither the Nazis or Japanese were evaluated on war crimes having to do with, for example, bombing London or Manila, etc. Had we returned to Tokyo with a bombing run after surrender, you might have a point. Again, you're applying the modern prism on a review of history.

---

McNamara disagreed:

Quote:

---

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

---