3 ms·

Comparing use of nuclear weapons in Japan to allowing russia to, uncontested, wage a war of invasion against Ukraine is silly. Japan started a war of aggression

Comparing use of nuclear weapons in Japan to allowing russia to, uncontested, wage a war of invasion against Ukraine is silly. Japan started a war of aggression with the United States. We, as people with the benefit of hindsight, probably agree on whether nuclear weapons were an appropriate place to take the war. But don’t forget that Japan brought war to the US, just as russia has brought war to Ukraine. As for Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, I can look at US military moral failures there and still condemn russia’s epic moral failure in Ukraine. Incidentally, US’s invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was far more justified than the soviet invasion of Afghanistan previously. If soviets hadn’t waged a similar immoral expansionist war there, I’m confident there’d have been no taliban. No, the US isn’t morally pure, but Ukraine’s blood is on russia’s hands alone.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
landemva 4y ago
> Japan started a war of aggression with the United States. Before that, President Roosevelt enacted a broad embargo on Japan. No more steel and no more fuel. Some say Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to act, and the timeline supports that idea. https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1930 https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1930
- nradov 4y ago
  The embargo was a matter of economic sanctions only. There was no blockade, no use of force, no act of war. If Japan was short of resources, well that was their problem. No one forced them to start a war of aggression by attacking Pearl Harbor.
  - landemva 4y ago
    Is there some other international sanctions beyond economic? Keep strangling an island nation, restrict imports, and expect them to not react? If a person believes "my body my right" and is fired from a federal job for refusing to take an emergency use authorization shot, is that also ok because it only harms the person economically?
    - nradov 4y ago
      There are a variety of types of sanctions beyond economic ones. For example, the US sometimes specifically bans sanctioned individuals from crossing our borders (including airspace). Japan was in no way being strangled. Before Japan's unprovoked attack, there were no US Navy ships blockading their harbors. International trade is a voluntary affair, and the US and its allies were under no legal or moral obligation to continue selling to Japan. Cutting off trade through non-violent means was not considered an act of war under the international treaties or customary norms in effect in 1941. Whether they were expected to react or not is immaterial. I'm not sure why you're trying to derail the discussion with irrelevant questions about vaccine mandates. Those apply to individuals, not sovereign states, and are completely off topic.
- peatmoss 4y ago
  Trade embargoes happen somewhat regularly. It would be absurd to suggest that refusing to sell materials to a geopolitical adversary is remotely comparable to an invasion that kills over a couple thousand people. Also, US relations with Japan soured pre-war in large part due to Japan’s expansion by force in the region. “Expansion in the region” here encompassing events including that known as “the rape of Nanjing.” So, again, US isn’t bloodless, but an embargo against the perpetrators of atrocities in Asia is hardly comparable to Japan’s war of aggression launched against the US.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

landemva 4y ago

> Japan started a war of aggression with the United States. Before that, President Roosevelt enacted a broad embargo on Japan. No more steel and no more fuel. Some say Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to act, and the timeline supports that idea. https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1930 https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1930

nradov 4y ago
The embargo was a matter of economic sanctions only. There was no blockade, no use of force, no act of war. If Japan was short of resources, well that was their problem. No one forced them to start a war of aggression by attacking Pearl Harbor.
- landemva 4y ago
  Is there some other international sanctions beyond economic? Keep strangling an island nation, restrict imports, and expect them to not react? If a person believes "my body my right" and is fired from a federal job for refusing to take an emergency use authorization shot, is that also ok because it only harms the person economically?
  - nradov 4y ago
    There are a variety of types of sanctions beyond economic ones. For example, the US sometimes specifically bans sanctioned individuals from crossing our borders (including airspace). Japan was in no way being strangled. Before Japan's unprovoked attack, there were no US Navy ships blockading their harbors. International trade is a voluntary affair, and the US and its allies were under no legal or moral obligation to continue selling to Japan. Cutting off trade through non-violent means was not considered an act of war under the international treaties or customary norms in effect in 1941. Whether they were expected to react or not is immaterial. I'm not sure why you're trying to derail the discussion with irrelevant questions about vaccine mandates. Those apply to individuals, not sovereign states, and are completely off topic.
peatmoss 4y ago
Trade embargoes happen somewhat regularly. It would be absurd to suggest that refusing to sell materials to a geopolitical adversary is remotely comparable to an invasion that kills over a couple thousand people. Also, US relations with Japan soured pre-war in large part due to Japan’s expansion by force in the region. “Expansion in the region” here encompassing events including that known as “the rape of Nanjing.” So, again, US isn’t bloodless, but an embargo against the perpetrators of atrocities in Asia is hardly comparable to Japan’s war of aggression launched against the US.